Bilfiil 


Who  Wrote  the  Pentateuch? 


i. 

THE  PROBLEM. 

• 

The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  is  a  phrase 
which  conveys  little  if  any  meaning  to  the  general  public. 
It  is  however  a  technical  phrase  with  a  definite  meaning 
which,  so  soon  as  it  is  explained,  becomes  plain  and  evi¬ 
dent  and  serves  to  fix  the  attention  upon  the  problem  in 
hand  much  better  than  any  paraphrase  could  do. 

The  Hexateuch  is  composed  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  book  of  Joshua.  The  Pentateuch  comprehends  the 
five  books  which  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  constitute  the 
Law,  embracing  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
and  Deuteronomy.  Modern  criticism  has  shown  that 
the  book  of  Joshua  originally  was  an  essential  member 
of  the  group  and  therefore  criticism  has  to  deal  with  the 
Hexateuch. 

The  Higher  Criticism  is  named  Higher  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  Lower  Criticism.  The  Lower  Criticism 
deals  with  the  Text  of  the  Scriptures.  It  searches  all 
the  versions  and  manuscripts  and  citations  in  order  to 
ascertain  the  genuine  original  Text  as  it  came  from  the 
hands  of  its  authors  and  editors.  It  has  to  do  with  let¬ 
ters,  words,  and  sentences,  as  such,  without  regard  to 
their  literary  form  or  meaning.  The  Higher  Criticism 
builds  on  the  Lower  Criticism  as  its  foundation.  It  takes 

Copyright  1892,  by  C.  A  Briggs. 


2 


THE  IIEXATEUCH 


the  Text  of  Scripture  from  the  hands  of  Lower  Criticism 
and  studies  it  as  literature.  This  distinction  between 
the  Higher  and  the  Lower  Criticism  was  not  made  by 
Biblical  scholars,  but  by  classical  scholars  in  their  studies 
of  the  great  monuments  of  Greek  and  Roman  literature. 
So  soon  as  Biblical  scholars  began  to  study  the  Holy 
Scripture  with  scientific  methods,  they  adopted  this 
terminology  with  its  distinctive  meanings. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  four  different  lines  of  in¬ 
quiry. 

(1) .  Integrity.  Is  the  writing  the  product  of  one  mind 
as  an  organic  whole,  or  composed  of  several  pieces  of  the 
same  author  ;  or  is  it  a  collection  of  writings  by  different 
authors?  Has  it  retained  its  original  integrity  or  has  it 
been  interpolated?  May  the  interpolations  be  discrim¬ 
inated  from  the  original  ?  The  Pentateuch  is  ascribed 
by  the  prevalent  tradition  to  Moses,  and  the  book  of 
Joshua  to  Joshua.  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch  traces  this  tradition  to  its  sources,  examines  the 
references  to  the  Hexateuch  in  other  writings,  and  then 
searches  the  Hexateuch  itself,  in  order  to  learn  whether 
this  tradition  corresponds  with  the  facts  of  the  case  or 
not.  It  finds  that  the  tradition  has  no  sound  historical 
basis,  that  the  references  to  the  Hexateuch  in  other  writ¬ 
ings  and  the  testimony  of  the  Hexateuch  itself  tell  a 
different  story,  and  show  conclusively  that  the  Hexateuch 
embraces  Mosaic  originals,  several  different  codes  and 
historical  documents  and  the  handiwork  of  a  number  of 
editors  at  different  epochs  in  the  history  of  Israel,  and 
that  the  unity  of  the  Hexateuch  is  the  result  of  a  final 
redaction  of  all  the  earlier  elements. 

(2) .  Authenticity.  Is  the  author’s  name  given  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  writing?  Is  it  anonymous?  Can  it  be 
pseudonymous?  Is  it  a  compilation?  The  Higher 


THE  PROBLEM 


3 


Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  finds  that  the  Hexateuch  is 
anonymous  and  that  it  is  a  compilation. 

(3) .  Literary  Form.  Is  the  writing  poetry  or  prose? 
Is  the  prose  historic,  didactic,  rhetorical,  or  statistical? 
Is  the  poetry  lyric,  dramatic,  epic,  pastoral,  or  compos¬ 
ite  ?  What  is  the  style  of  the  author  and  what  are  his 
distinctive  characteristics  in  form,  method,  and  color  ? 
The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  finds  four  great 
historical  narratives,  of  different  styles  and  methods  of 
historical  composition.  It  finds  a  large  number  of 
ancient  poems  embedded  in  the  narratives,  so  many 
indeed  as  to  make  a  collection  nearly  as  large  as  the 
Psalter,  if  they  were  gathered  together  in  a  separate 
book.  It  finds  several  law  codes,  differing  in  method 
of  codification  and  style  as  well  as  in  bulk  and  con¬ 
tents. 

(4) .  Credibility.  Is  the  writing  reliable  ?  Do  its  state¬ 
ments  accord  with  the  truth,  or  are  they  colored  and 
warped  by  prejudice,  superstition,  or  reliance  upon  in¬ 
sufficient  or  unworthy  testimony  ?  What  character  does 
the  author  bear  as  to  prudence,  good  judgment,  fairness, 
integrity,  and  critical  sagacity?  The  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Hexateuch  vindicates  its  credibility.  It  strength¬ 
ens  the  historical  credibility  (1)  by  showing  that  we  have 
four  parallel  narratives  instead  of  the  single  narrative  of 
the  traditional  theory ;  and  (2)  by  tracing  these  narratives 
to  their  sources  in  the  more  ancient  documents  buried 
in  them.  It  traces  the  development  of  the  original 
Mosaic  legislation  in  its  successive  stages  of  codification 
in  accordance  with  the  historical  development  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  finds  minor  discrepancies  and  in¬ 
accuracies  such  as  are  familiar  to  students  of  the  Gospels  ; 
but  these  increase  the  historic  credibility  of  the  writings, 
as  they  show  that  the  writers  and  compilers  were  true  to 


4 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


their  sources  of  information  even  when  they  could  not 
harmonize  them  in  all  respects. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  several  lines  of  evidence 
upon  which  it  relies  for  its  conclusions. 

(1) .  The  writing  must  be  in  accordance  with  its  sup¬ 
posed  historical  position  as  to  time  and  place  and  cir¬ 
cumstances. 

(2) .  Differences  of  style  imply  differences  of  experience 
and  age  of  the  same  author,  or,  when  sufficiently  great, 
differences  of  author  and  of  period  of  composition. 

(3) .  Differences  of  opinion  and  conception  imply  differ¬ 
ences  of  author  when  these  are  sufficiently  great,  and  also 
differences  of  period  of  composition. 

(4) .  Citations  show  the  dependence  of  the  author  upon 
the  author  or  authors  cited. 

(5) .  Positive  testimony  as  to  the  writing  in  other  writ¬ 
ings  of  acknowledged  authority  is  the  strongest  evi¬ 
dence. 

(6) .  The  argument  from  silence  is  often  of  great  value. 
If  the  matter  in  question  was  beyond  the  scope  of  the 
author’s  argument,  it  either  had  certain  characteristics 
which  excluded  it,  or  it  had  no  manner  of  relation  to  the 
argument. 

If  the  matter  in  question  was  fairly  within  the  scope 
of  the  author’s  argument,  he  either  omitted  it  for  good 
and  sufficient  reasons,  or  else  he  was  unconscious  or 
ignorant  of  it,  or  else  it  had  not  come  into  exist¬ 
ence.* 

These  lines  of  evidence  are  used  in  the  Higher  Criti¬ 
cism  of  all  kinds  of  literature.  They  were  tested  and 
verified  in  the  study  of  Greek  and  Roman  literature,  and 
of  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  Church,  long  before 


*  See  Biblical  Study ,  pp.  87-91. 


THE  PROBLEM 


5 


any  Biblical  scholar  used  them  in  his  studies  of  Holy 
Scripture. 

Our  problem  is  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch. 
We  shall  first  consider  the  evidences  from  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  then  test  the  traditional  theory,  and  finally  trace 
the  history  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch, 
and  use  the  six  lines  of  evidence  for  the  solution  of  the 
four  great  questions,  as  to  the  Integrity,  the  Authentic¬ 
ity,  the  Literary  Forms  and  the  Credibility  of  the  Hexa¬ 
teuch. 


II. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE. 

I. —  The  Testimony  of  the  Hexateuch. 

We  shall  consider  first  those  passages  of  the  Hexa¬ 
teuch  which  give  evidence  as  to  authorship. 

(i).  “And  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the  words  of 
Yahweh,  and  all  the  judgments  :  and  all  the  people  answered 
with  one  voice  and  said,  All  the  words  which  Yahweh  hath 
spoken  will  we  do.  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Yahweh, 
and  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  builded  an  altar  under  the 
mount,  and  twelve  pillars,  according  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Is¬ 
rael  ....  And  he  took  the  book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  in 
the  audience  of  the  people:  and  they  said,  All  that  Yahweh  hath 
spoken  will  we  do,  and  be  obedient."  (Ex.  xxiv.  3,  4,  7.) 

This  passage  speaks  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in 
which  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Yahweh.  These 
words  of  Yahweh  were  evidently  those  which  Yahweh 
said  unto  Moses  at  Horeb,  and  which  are  given  in  Ex. 

xx.  22-26,  and  probably  also  the  judgments  of  chapters 

xxi. -xxiii.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  editor 
of  the  Hexateuch  designed  to  give  the  essential  contents 
of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in  that  series  of  pentades 
and  decalogues  which  seem  to  have  been  the  original 
contents  of  this  code  of  the  Ephraimitic  writer.  A 
critical  study  of  this  code  shows  that  there  have  been 

(6) 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


7 


omissions,  insertions,  transpositions,  and  revisions  ;  but 
the  substance  of  this  original  code  of  the  twelve  deca¬ 
logues  is  there.* 

This  passage  proves  that  Moses  wrote  a  Book  of 
the  Covenant  ;  but  it  does  not  prove  that  he  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  of  which  this  Book  in  its  present  form  takes 
less  than  four  chapters. 

(2) .  “And  Yahweh  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words: 
for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with 
thee  and  with  Israel.”  (Ex.  xxxiv.  27.) 

These  words  written  at  this  time  by  Moses  refer  with¬ 
out  doubt  to  the  words  which  precede,  that  is  the  deca¬ 
logue,  which  may  be  called  the  Little  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  This  decalogue  of  the  Little  Book  of  the 
Covenant  is  parallel  for  the  most  part  with  one  of  the 
decalogues  of  the  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant.  The 
one  of  these  books  is  mentioned  by  the  Ephraimitic 
writer,  the  other  by  the  Judaic  writer.  The  question 
thus  arises  whether  there  were  two  law  codes  in  two  dif¬ 
ferent  books,  given  within  a  few  weeks  of  each  other,  or 
whether  these  are  two  different  codifications  of  one  and 
the  same  Book  of  the  Covenant.  At  all  events,  this  pas¬ 
sage  proves  no  more  than  that  Moses  wrote  the  deca¬ 
logue  of  the  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  by  no 
means  implies  that  he  wrote  the  chapter  which  contains 
this  narrative,  still  less  the  entire  Pentateuch.f 

(3) .  “  But  as  for  thee,  stand  thou  here  by  me,  and  I  will  speak 
unto  thee  all  the  commandment,  and  the  statutes,  and  the  judg¬ 
ments,  which  thou  shalt  teach  them,  that  they  may  do  them  in 
the  land  which  I  give  them  to  possess  it.”  (Dt.  v.  31.) 

This  passage  proves  no  more  than  that  Moses  spoke 
at  Mt.  Horeb,  commandments,  statutes  and  judgments. 


*  See  Appendix  VI. 


f  See  Appendix  V. 


8 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


No  mention  is  made  of  committing  any  of  these  to 
writing.  It  is  probably  a  parallel  statement  to  Ex. 
xxiv.  12. 

(4) .  “And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  the 
priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
Yahweh,  and  unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel.”  .  .  .  .  “  Take  this 
book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  cove¬ 
nant  of  Yahweh  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness 
against  thee.”  (Dt.  xxxi.  9,  26.) 

Verse  26  tells  us  what  precisely  it  was  which  Moses 
wrote,  namely,  the  book  of  the  Thorah,  the  book  of  in¬ 
struction.  This  law  book,  as  all  modern  Biblical  schol¬ 
ars  recognize,  is  what  we  call  the  Deuteronomic  code. 
The  code  comprehends  the  laws  in  Deuteronomy  xii.- 
xxvi.  This  code  is  in  the  rhetorical  form  and  not  in  the 
form  of  decalogues  and  pentades  as  are  the  covenant 
codes.  The  question  then  arises  whether  this  rhetorical 
form  belongs  to  the  original  code  or  whether  the  origi¬ 
nal  code  of  this  law  book  has  not  been  put  in  this 
rhetorical  form  by  the  Deuteronomist.*  Whatever 
opinion  we  may  form  on  this  question,  it  is  evident  that 
the  most  that  you  can  prove  from  this  passage  is  that 
Moses  wrote  a  law  book  which  for  substance  is  given  in 
the  legal  chapters  of  Deuteronomy.  It  does  not  prove 
that  Moses  wrote  Deuteronomy,  still  less  that  he  wrote 
the  other  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(5) .  “  Only  be  strong  and  very  courageous,  to  observe  to  do  ac¬ 
cording  to  all  the  law,  which  Moses  my  servant  commanded 
thee  :  turn  not  from  it  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left,  that  thou 
mayest  have  good  success  whithersoever  thou  goest.  This  book 
of  the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt 
meditate  therein  day  and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do 
according  to  all  that  is  written  therein  :  for  then  thou  shalt  make 


*  See  p.  85  seq. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


9 


thy  way  prosperous,  and  then  thou  shalt  have  good  success.” 
(Josh.  i.  7,  8.) 

“  As  Moses  the  servant  of  Yahweh  commanded  the  children  of 
Israel,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  an  altar  of 
unhewn  stones,  upon  which  no  man  had  lifted  up  any  iron  :  and 
they  offered  thereon  burnt  offerings  unto  Yahweh,  and  sacrificed 
peace  offerings.”  (Josh.  viii.  31.) 

These  passages  evidently  refer  to  the  law  book  al¬ 
ready  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy.  They  confirm  the 
evidence  as  to  the  composition  of  that  law  book  by 
Moses,  but  they  do  not  give  any  additional  evidence. 
There  is  nothing  in  them  that  implies  that  Moses  wrote 
anything  else. 

From  all  these  passages  it  is  plain  that  Moses  wrote 
one  or  more  codes  of  law,  but  they  give  no  evidence 
that  Moses  wrote  all  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  con¬ 
tained  in  the  other  codes,  and  those  which  are  embedded 
in  the  historical  narratives. 

(6) .  “  So  Moses  wrote  this  song  the  same  day,  and  taught  it 
the  children  of  Israel.”  (Deut.  xxxi.  22.) 

The  song  referred  to  is  given  in  Deut.  xxxii.  and  it  is 
one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  poetry  in  the  Old  Testament, 
called  by  Schultz  the  Magna  Charta  of  prophecy. 
Whether  the  song  in  its  present  form  came  from  the 
pen  of  Moses  is  doubted  by  many  evangelical  scholars ; 
but,  whether  it  did  or  not,  the  most  we  can  prove  from 
this  passage  is  that  Moses  wrote  a  song  which  the  com¬ 
piler  of  the  Hexateuch  proposes  to  give  in  Deuteronomy 
xxxii.,  in  the  form  in  which  he  knew  of  it. 

(7) .  “And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  according  to  their 
journeys  by  the  commandment  of  Yahweh  :  and  these  are  their 
journeys  according  to  their  goings  out.”  (Num.  xxxiii.  2.) 

This  passage  definitely  states  what  it  was  that  Moses 


10 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


wrote,  namely,  the  list  of  stations  of  the  journeys  of 
Israel  from  Egypt  to  the  valley  of  the  Jordan.  It  re¬ 
quires  one  to  spring  over  too  wide  a  stretch  of  reasoning 
to  conclude  from  this  list  of  journeys  contained  in  a 
single  chapter  that  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch. 

(8).  “  And  Yahweh  said  unto  Moses,  Write  this  for  a  memorial 
in  a  book,  and  rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of  Joshua:  that  I  will  ut¬ 
terly  blot  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven.” 
(Ex.  xvii.  14.) 

Here  it  is  distinctly  stated  what  Moses  was  to  write, 
namely,  the  words,  “  I  will  utterly  blot  out  the  remem¬ 
brance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven.”  The  Revised 
Version  correctly  renders  “  in  a  book”  taking  the  Mas- 
soretic  pointing  as  giving  the  generic  article  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  usage  elsewhere  (cf.  Job  xix.  23).  But  the 
American  revisers  insisted  on  giving  the  article  a  definite 
force  “  in  the  book  ”  in  order  to  support  the  theory  that 
Moses  kept  a  journal  in  which  he  wrote  down  from  time 
to  time  the  events  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch.  This 
crude  conceit  as  to  the  method  of  the  composition  of 
the  Pentateuch  may  now  be  regarded  as  antiquated. 

The  passages  usually  cited  from  the  Pentateuch  to 
prove  its  Mosaic  authorship  have  been  examined.  Such 
statements  in  any  other  historical  writing  would  imply 
that  the  author  or  compiler  was  referring  to  some  of  the 
written  sources  from  which  he  derived  the  materials  for 
his  own  work.  When  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  says 
that  Moses  wrote  one  or  more  codes  of  law,  that  he 
wrote  a  song,  that  he  recorded  a  certain  memorandum, 
it  would  appear  that  having  specified  such  of  his  mate¬ 
rials  as  were  written  by  Moses,  he  would  have  us  infer 
that  the  other  materials  came  from  other  sources  of  infor¬ 
mation.  But  it  has  been  argued  the  other  way,  namely, 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


11 


that,  because  it  is  said  Moses  wrote  the  codes  of  the  cove¬ 
nant  and  the  Deuteronomic  code,  he  also  wrote  all  the 
laws  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  that  because  he  wrote  the  song 
Deut.  xxxii.,  he  wrote  all  the  other  pieces  of  poetry  in 
the  Pentateuch ;  that  because  he  recorded  the  list  of 
stations  and  the  memorial  against  Amalek,  he  recorded 
all  the  other  historical  events  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is 
probable  that  no  one  would  so  argue  did  he  not  suppose 
it  was  necessary  to  maintain  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  at  every  cost.  All  that  the  Pentateuch 
says  as  to  Mosaic  authorship  we  may  accept  as  valid  and 
true ;  but  we  cannot  be  asked  to  accept  such  a  compre¬ 
hensive  inference  as  that  Moses  wrote  the  whole  Penta¬ 
teuch  from  the  simple  statements  of  the  Pentateuch  that 
he  wrote  out  the  few  things  distinctly  specified. 

We  shall  now  consider  some  passages  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  which  tell  a  different  story. 

(9).  In  Josh.  xxiv.  26,  it  is  said  that  Joshua  wrote  the 
words  of  his  last  discourse  in  the  book  of  the  instruction 
or  law  of  God.  The  name  of  this  book  differs  from  the 
name  of  the  book  containing  the  Deuteronomic  code 
only  by  the  substitution  of  Elohim,  God,  for  Yahweh. 
This  statement  in  the  Ephraimitic  writer  seems  to  imply 
that  there  was  an  official  divine  law  book  to  which 
Joshua  made  this  addition.  But  what  has  become  of  it? 
If  it  was  the  same  book  as  the  Deuteronomic  code, 
why  are  not  these  words  in  that  code  at  the  present 
time  ?  Is  not  the  view  more  reasonable  on  the  basis  of 
this  passage,  that  this  old  law  book  was  used  for  the 
most  part  by  the  Deuteronomist  in  the  book  of  Deuter¬ 
onomy,  but  by  the  Ephraimitic  writer  in  the  passage 
Josh.  xxiv.  26,  and  that  the  compiler  of  the  present 
Hexateuch  has  given  us  both  extracts  from  this  same 
original  law  book  in  the  words  of  these  two  different 


12 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


authors?  Will  any  now  argue  from  the  statement,  that 
Joshua  wrote  his  last  discourse  in  this  law  book,  that 
Joshua  wrote  the  whole  of  the  book  which  bears  his 
name  ?  It  used  to  be  so  argued.  The  day  is  not  distant 
when  we  shall  say  “it  used  to  be  so  ”  for  the  argument 
for  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(10) .  In  Num.  xxi.  14,  a  piece  of  poetry  is  cited  from 
the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh.  This  book,  which,  like 
Joshua’s  law  book,  is  no  longer  in  existence,  was  prob¬ 
ably  an  anthology  of  national  Hebrew  poetry.  Its  other 
contents  are  unknown.  Possibly  some  of  them  are  to  be 
found  among  the  other  poetic  extracts  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch.  It  is  not  said  who  was  the  author  or  compiler  of 
this  book.  Is  there  any  reason  to  think  of  Moses?  Or 
shall  we  not  rather  conclude,  in  accordance  with  the 
methods  of  reasoning  of  the  anti-critics,  that  because 
this  piece  of  poetry  was  taken  from  the  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Yahweh  the  whole  Pentateuch  was  taken  from 
that  book,  and  was  written  by  its  author? 

(11) .  In  Josh.  x.  12,  13,  a  strophe  is  cited  from  the 
book  of  Jasher,  describing  the  theophany  at  the  battle 
of  Beth-Horon. 

“  Sun,  stand  thou  still  upon  Gibeon  ; 

And  thou,  moon,  in  the  valley  of  Aijalon, 

And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed, 

Until  the  nation  had  avenged  themselves  of  their  enemies.” 

This  book  seems  to  have  been  another  collection  of 
poetry.  Two  other  extracts  from  this  book  are  given 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  one,  2  Sam.  i.  18,  is  the 
lament  of  David  over  Jonathan  and  Saul,  a  dirge  of  won¬ 
derful  beauty  and  power ;  the  other  is  a  little  piece  of 
four  lines  in  1  Kings  viii.  12,  13,  which,  according  to  the 
LXX.  was  also  taken  from  the  book  of  Jasher,  although 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


13 


this  reference  to  the  book  of  Jasher,  and  one  line  of  the 
poem,  is  missing  from  the  Massoretic  text. 

“The  sun  is  known  in  the  heavens, 

But  Yahweh  said  he  would  dwell  in  thick  darkness. 

I  have  built  up  a  house  of  habitation  for  thee  ; 

A  place  for  thee  to  dwell  in  forever.” 

This  passage  is  cited  in  the  words  of  Solomon  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple.  If  now  the  book  of  Jasher 
contains,  besides  the  ode  of  the  battle  of  Beth-Horon  of 
the  time  of  Joshua,  a  dirge  of  David,  and  a  piece  of 
poetry  of  Solomon,  that  book  could  not  be  earlier  than 
the  dedication  of  the  temple  of  Solomon.  The  compiler 
who  cites  from  that  book  could  not  have  compiled  the 
book  of  Joshua  before  the  book  from  which  he  cites  was 
written.  Therefore,  the  book  of  Joshua  could  not  have 
been  compiled  in  its  present  form  before  the  dedication 
of  the  temple.  If  now  the  book  of  Joshua  is  insepara¬ 
ble  from  the  Pentateuch  and  makes  with  it  a  Hexateuch, 
and  if  the  four  documents  from  the  Pentateuch  run 
right  on  through  the  book  of  Joshua,  then  it  is  evident 
that  the  Pentateuch  could  not  have  been  compiled  by 
Moses,  but  must  have  been  compiled  subsequent  to  the 
dedication  of  the  temple  of  Solomon.  But  this  connec¬ 
tion  of  Joshua  with  the  Pentateuch  can  be  established 
by  indubitable  evidence  from  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
book  of  Joshua,*  therefore  it  is  the  evidence  of  the  Hex¬ 
ateuch  itself  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch. 

II. —  The  Testimony  of  the  Prophets. 

We  are  surprised  by  a  lack  of  reference  to  the  Mosaic 
law  in  the  prophets  of  Israel.  The  most  important  pas¬ 
sage  in  the  discussion  is  Hos.  viii.  12.  This  is  rendered 


*  See  pp.  61,  68,  70  seq. 


14 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


by  the  Revised  Version  correctly  :  “  Though  I  write 

for  him  my  law  in  ten  thousand  precepts,  they  are 
counted  as  a  strange  thing.”  The  American  revisers 
would  translate,  “  I  wrote  for  him  the  ten  thousand 
things  of  my  law.”  The  American  revisers  wish  to  hold 
to  the  traditional  interpretation  of  this  passage,  that  it 
refers  to  the  ten  thousand  precepts  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch.  This  would  imply  a  very  extensive  body 
of  law  or  doctrine  written  in  or  before  the  time  of  Hosea, 
and  here  referred  to  by  him.  But  unfortunately  for  the 
American  revisers,  the  tense  of  the  verb  is  against  them. 
It  is  the  Hebrew  imperfect  tense.  It  is  incorrect  to 
render  that  tense  as  an  aorist  referring  it  to  the  Mosaic 
legislation.  It  is  possible  to  render  it  as  a  frequentative. 
But  this  would  refer  it  to  a  series  of  divine  laws  reaching 
up  to  the  prophet’s  time,  and  that  would  not  suit  their 
purpose.  The  English  revisers  give  the  translation  which 
is  best  suited  to  the  Hebrew  tense  and  the  context  of 
the  passage,  in  rendering  it  as  hypothetical.  In  this  case 
there  is  no  more  than  a  general  reference  to  the  fact  that 
divine  laws  were  recorded,  and  that  if  such  laws  were 
given  to  an  indefinite  extent  so  as  to  run  up  to  myriads 
of  laws,  they  would  only  multiply  the  transgressions  of 
a  rebellious  people.  The  laws  were  really  prophetic  in¬ 
structions,  including  those  of  Hosea  himself.  That  this 
is  the  true  interpretation,  we  see  from  the  usage  of  other 
prophets.  Jeremiah  viii.  8  refers  to  a  law  of  Yahweh 
as  coming  through  false  prophets.  Thorah  is  indeed 
divine  instruction  or  doctrine,  rather  than  divine  law, 
and  hence  in  the  usage  of  the  Old  Testament  it  refers  to 
any  divine  instruction,  any  teaching  from  God.  It  was 
not  until  the  reign  of  rabbinical  tradition  that  the  law 
became  a  technical  term  for  the  Pentateuch.  As  De- 
litzsch  says :  “  The  recognition  of  this  fact  opens  the 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


15 


eyes  and  delivers  from  the  bondage  of  prejudice.”  The 
older  scholars  were  blinded  by  the  technical  usage  of 
rabbinical  theology  to  the  historic  usage  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  ;  and  unfortunately  the  same  veil  lieth  upon  the 
heart  of  some  modern  scholars  whensoever  Moses  is 
read. 

III. —  The  Laiv  Book  of  Josiah. 


The  most  important  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
evidence  for  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  are  2 
Kings  xxii.  8,  u  ;  xxiii.  2,  21,  25  ;  and  their  parallels  2 
Chron.  xxxiv.  14,  15,  19,  3°>  xxxv.  3,  6. 

II.  Chronicles  xxxiv.-v. 


II.  Kings  xxii.-xxiii. 

“  And  Hilkiah  the  high  priest 
said  unto  Shaphan  the  scribe, 
I  have  found  the  book  of  the 
law  in  the  house  of  Yahweh. 
And  Hilkiah  delivered  the  book 
to  Shaphan,  and  he  read  it.” 
(xxii.  8.) 


“  And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
the  king  had  heard  the  words 
of  the  book  of  the  law,  that  he 
rent  his  clothes.”  (ver.  11.) 

•  •  •  •  •  • 
“And  the  king  went  up  to 
the  house  of  Yahweh,  and  all 
the  men  of  Judah  and  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  with 
him,  and  the  priests,  and  the 
prophets,  and  all  the  people, 
both  small  and  great :  and  he 


“And  when  they  brought  out 
the  money  that  was  brought 
into  the  house  of  Yahweh, 
Hilkiah  the  priest  found  the 
book  of  the  law  of  Yahweh 
given  by  Moses.  And  Hilkiah 
answered  and  said  to  Shaphan 
the  scribe,  I  have  found  the 
book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of 
Yahweh.  And  Hilkiah  deliv¬ 
ered  the  book  to  Shaphan.” 
(ver.  14,  1 5.) 

•  ••••• 

“And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
the  king  had  heard  the  words 
of  the  law,  that  he  rent  his 
clothes.”  (ver.  19.) 

•  •  •  •  •  • 
“And  the  king  went  up  to 
the  house  of  Yahweh,  and  all 
the  men  of  Judah  and  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites,  and  all 
the  people,  both  great  and 
small :  and  he  read  in  their  ears 


16 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


read  in  their  ears  all  the  words 
of  the  book  of  the  covenant 
which  was  found  in  the  house 
of  Yahweh.”  (xxiii.  2.) 

•  ••••• 

“And  the  king  commanded 
all  the  people,  saying,  Keep  the 
passover  unto  Yahweh  your 
God,  as  it  is  written  in  this 

book  of  the  covenant.”  (ver.  21.) 

•  ••••• 

“And  like  unto  him  was  there 
no  king  before  him,  that  turned 
to  Yahweh  with  all  his  heart, 
and  with  all  his  soul,  and  with 
all  his  might,  according  to  all 
the  law  of  Moses  ;  neither  after 
him  arose  there  any  like  him.” 
(ver.  25.) 


all  the  words  of  the  book  of  the 
covenant  that  was  found  in  the 
house  of  Yahweh.”  (ver.  30.) 

•  ••••• 

“And  he  said  unto  the  Le- 
vites  that  taught  all  Israel, 
.  .  .  .  kill  the  passover,  and 
sanctify  yourselves,  and  prepare 
for  your  brethren,  to  do  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  word  of  Yahweh  by 
the  hand  of  Moses.”  (xxxv.  3, 6.) 


Critical  scholars  are  agreed  that  this  law  book  was  the 
Deuteronomic  code.  The  older  view  was  that  it  was  the 
entire  Pentateuch.  There  are  a  few  anti-critics  who 
adhere  to  this  traditional  theory  as  they  do  to  all  others. 
It  is  sufficient  to  cite  the  careful  statement  of  the  Hul- 
sean  professor  of  divinity  at  Cambridge,  England,  Her¬ 
bert  E.  Ryle : 

“  When  we  enquire  what  this  ‘  Book  of  the  Law  ’  comprised, 
the  evidence  at  our  disposal  is  quite  sufficiently  explicit  to  direct 
us  to  a  reply.  Even  apart  from  the  knowledge  which  we  now 
possess  of  the  structure  of  the  Pentateuch,  there  was  never 
much  probability  in  the  supposition,  that  the  book  discovered  by 
Hilkiah  was  identical  with  the  whole  Jewish  ‘Torah,’  our  Penta¬ 
teuch.  The  narrative  does  not  suggest  so  considerable  a  work. 
Its  contents  were  quickly  perused  and  readily  grasped.  Being 
read  aloud,  it  at  once  left  distinct  impressions  upon  ques¬ 
tions  of  national  duty.  Its  dimensions  could  not  have  been  very 
large,  nor  its  precepts  very  technical.  The  complex  character 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


IT 


of  the  Pentateuch  fails  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  picture. 
Perhaps,  too  (although  the  argument  is  hardly  one  to  be  pressed), 
as  it  appears  that  only  a  single  roll  of  the  Law  was  found,  it  may 
not  unfairly  be  remarked,  that  the  whole  Torah  was  never  likely 
to  be  contained  in  one  roll ;  but  that,  if  a  single  roll  contained 
any  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  was  most  probably  the  Deu- 
teronomic  portion  of  it ;  for  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  of  all 
the  component  elements  of  the  Pentateuch,  presents  the  most 
unmistakable  appearance  of  having  once  formed  a  compact  in¬ 
dependent  work. 

‘‘  But,  there  is  no  need  to  have  recourse  to  arguments  of  such 
a  doubtful  kind.  For  while  the  evidence  shows  that  a  completed 
Torah  could  not  have  existed  at  this  time,  we  seem  to  have 
convincing  proof  that  ‘the  Book  of  the  Law’  was  either  a  por¬ 
tion  of  our  Deuteronomy  or  a  collection  of  laws,  Deuteronomic 
in  tone,  and,  in  range  of  contents,  having  a  close  resemblance  to 
our  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  evidence  is  twofold,  (i).  The 
description  which  is  given  of  the  book  found  in  the  Temple 
shows,  that,  in  its  most  characteristic  features,  it  approximated 
more  closely  to  portions  of  Deuteronomy  than  to  any  other 
section  of  the  Pentateuch.  (2).  The  historian,  from  whom  we 
obtain  the  account,  appears,  when  he  speaks  of  ‘  the  law,’  to  have 
in  view  the  Deuteronomic  section,  and  scarcely  to  be  acquainted 
with  any  other.  These  arguments  have  been  frequently  and 
fully  discussed  in  other  works,  so  that  we  need  not  here  do  more 
than  summarize  them  very  briefly. 

“  (1).  The  description  of  the  book  shows  that,  in  its  most  con¬ 
spicuous  features,  it  was  in  close  agreement  with  the  contents  of 
Deuteronomy. 

“  (a).  The  book  contained  denunciations  against  the  neglect  of 
the  covenant  with  Jehovah.  (2  Kings  xxii.  11-13,  16,  17). 

“  Now  the  Pentateuch  contains  two  extensive  passages  describ¬ 
ing  the  fearful  visitations  that  should  befall  the  people  of  Israel 
for  following  after  other  gods  (Lev.  xxvi. ;  Deut.  xxviii.-xxxi.). 
Of  these,  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  longest,  and  while 
the  passage  in  Leviticus  would  be  calculated  to  produce  a  very 
similar  impression,  it  may  be  noticed  that  the  words  of  Huldah, 
in  referring  to  the  curses  contained  in  the  ‘  Book  of  the  Law,’ 
possibly  contain  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxviii.  37,  xxix.  24  (cf.  2 
Kings  xxii.  19).  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  one  or  other,  or 


18 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


both  of  these  denunciations,  must  have  been  included  in  Josiah’s 
‘Book  of  the  Law.’ 

“  (b).  The  reforms  carried  out  bv  the  king  and  his  advisers,  in 
order  to  obey  the  commands  of  ‘the  Book  of  Law,’ deal  with 
matters  all  of  which  are  mentioned,  with  more  or  less  emphasis, 
in  the  Deuteronomic  legislation,  (i.)  The  principal  religious 
reform  carried  out  by  Josiah  was  the  suppression  of  the  worship 
at  the  high  places,  and  the  concentration  of  worship  at  the 
Temple.  No  point  is  insisted  on  so  frequently  and  so  em¬ 
phatically  in  the  Deuteronomic  laws  as  that  all  public  worship  is 
to  be  centralised  at  the  one  place  which  Jehovah  himself  should 
choose  (Deut.  xii.  5  and  passim ).  (ii.)  Josiah  took  measures  to 

abolish  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  a  form  of  idolatry 
distinct  from  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Ashtoreth.  His  action  is  in 
obedience  to  the  commands  of  Deuteronomic  laws  (Deut.  iv.  19, 
xvii.  3).  There  alone  in  the  Pentateuch  this  particular  form 
of  idolatry  is  combated.  For,  although  it  had  existed  in  an 
earlier  time,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  infected  the  religion  of 
Israel  until  late  in  the  monarchical  period  (cf.  2  Kings  xxi.  3,  5, 
xxiii.  4,  5,  11,  12).  (iii.)  Josiah  celebrated  the  Feast  of  the  Pass- 
over  (2  Kings  xxiii.  21-23)  in  accordance  with  ‘the  Book  of  the 
Law  ’ : — we  find  the  Law  of  the  Passover  laid  down  in  Deut.  xvi. 
1-8.  (iv.)  Josiah  expelled  the  wizards  and  diviners  from  the 

and  in  express  fulfilment  of  ‘the  Book  of  Law’  (2  Kings  xxiii. 
24):  we  find  the  prohibition  of  this  common  class  of  impostor  in 
Oriental  countries  expressed  in  strong  language  in  Deut.  xviii. 
9-14. 

“  It  is  not,  of  course,  for  a  moment  denied  that  laws,  dealing 
with  these  last  two  subjects,  are  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Pentateuch.  But  as  in  all  four  cases  Josiah’s  action  was  based 
upon  ‘the  law,'  whatever  ‘the  law’  was,  it  must  have  dealt  with 
‘  feasts  ’  and  with  ‘  wizards  ’  as  well  as  with  *  concentration  of 
worship’  and  ‘star-worship.’  In  the  Deuteronomic  laws  all  four 
points  are  touched  upon. 

“  (c).  The  book  found  in  the  Temple  is  designated  ‘the  Book 
of  the  Covenant'  (2  Kings  xxiii.  2,  21),  and  it  appears  that  it 
contained  a  covenant,  to  the  observance  of  which  the  king  sol¬ 
emnly  pledged  himself  {id.  3).  In  the  Pentateuch  we  find,  it  is 
true,  a  mention  of  ‘  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  ’  (Ex.  xxiv.  7),  by 
which  the  substance  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.) 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


19 


seems  to  be  denoted.  But  it  is  clear,  from  the  fact  that  the 
section,  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.,  contains  no  denunciation;  from  the  fact 
that  it  contains  only  the  very  briefest  notice  of  the  Feast  of  the 
Passover,  and  then  under  another  name  ‘the  Feast  of  Un¬ 
leavened  Bread’  (Ex.  xxiii.  15) ;  from  the  fact  that  it  makes  no 
mention  of  either  wizards  or  star-worship  ; — that  this  portion  of 
the  Israelite  law  cannot  be  ‘  the  covenant  ’  referred  to  in  2  Kings 
xxiii.  On  the  other  hand,  an  important  section  at  the  close  of 
cur  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  occupied  with  a  ‘  Covenant  ’ ;  and 
it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  that  a  ‘  Book  of  the  Law,’  which  was 
also  ‘  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,’  must  have  included  such  pas¬ 
sages  as  Deut.  xxix.  1,  ‘These  are  the  words  of  the  covenant 
which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of 
Israel  ’ ;  ver.  9,  ‘  Keep  therefore  the  words  of  this  covenant  ’ ;  ver. 
14,  ‘  Neither  with  you  only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this 
oath  ’;  ver.  21,  ‘According  to  all  the  curses  of  the  covenant  that 
is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  ’ ;  vers.  24,  25,  ‘  Even  all  the 
nations  shall  say,  Wherefore  hath  the  Lord  done  thus  unto  this 
land  ?  .  .  .  .  Then  men  shall  say,  Because  they  forsook  the  cove¬ 
nant  of  the  Lord.’ 

“(2).  The  historian  who  has  preserved  to  us  the  narrative  of 
the  finding  of  ‘the  Book  of  the  Law ’himself  quotes  directly 
from  ‘the  law’  in  two  passages,  and  in  both  instances  from  Deu- 
teronomic  writing.  In  1  Kings  ii.  3,  ‘  And  keep  the  charge 
of  the  Lord  thy  God  to  walk  in  His  ways,  to  keep  His  statutes 
and  His  commandments  and  His  judgments  and  His  testi¬ 
monies,  according  to  that  which  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
that  thou  mayest  prosper  in  all  that  thou  doest  and  whither¬ 
soever  thou  turnest  thyself,’  the  words  used  are  characteristically 
Deuteronomic,  and  the  thought  is  possibly  based  on  Deut.  xvii. 
18-20  (cf.  Josh.  i.  8).  In  2  Kings  xiv.  6,  ‘  But  the  children  of  the 
murderers  he  put  not  to  death  ;  according  to  that  which  is  writ¬ 
ten  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  as  the  Lord  commanded, 
saying,  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children,’ 
the  citation  is  taken  almost  word  for  word  from  Deut.  xxiv.  16. 
In  numerous  characteristic  expressions  and  phrases  the  compiler 
of  the  Books  of  Kings  shows  a  close  acquaintance  with  the  Deu¬ 
teronomic  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  though  nowhere,  perhaps, 
so  frequently  as  in  1  Kings  viii.,  ix.,  eg.  viii.  51  (cf.  Deut.  iv. 
20),  ix.  3  (cf.  Deut.  xii.  5),  ix.  7,  8  (cf.  Deut.  xxviii.  37,  xxix.  24). 


20 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Generally  speaking,  where  reference  is  made  to  ‘  the  law  ’  in  the 
Books  of  Kings,  the  allusion  can  only  be  satisfied  by  a  reminis¬ 
cence  of  a  Deuteronomic  passage.  Thus,  exclusive  of  the  two 
passages  already  quoted,  may  be  noted  i  Kings  viii.  9  (cf  Deut. 
x.  5,  xxix.  1),  53  (cf.  Deut.  iv.  20),  56  (cf.  Deut.  xii.  9,  10,  xxv.  19), 
2  Kings  x.  31,  xviii.  12,  xxi.  8,  xxii.  8,  xxiii.  25. 

“  If,  therefore,  the  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Kings  identi¬ 
fied  ‘the  law  of  Moses’  and  ‘the  book  of  the  law’  with  Deu¬ 
teronomy,  or,  at  least,  with  a  Deuteronomic  version  of  the  law, 
we  may  nearly  take  it  for  granted,  that,  in  his  narrative  of  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  when  he  mentioned  ‘the  Book  of  the  Law’ 
without  further  description,  he  must  have  had  in  his  mind  the 
same  Deuteronomic  writings  with  which  he  was  so  familiar.” 
( Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  48-53.) 

This  long  extract  gives  the  critical  argument  com¬ 
pactly  and  thoroughly,  and  in  the  course  of  it  gives 
the  true  meaning  of  the  several  passages  in  the  book  of 
Kings  bearing  on  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch, 
making  it  clear  that  these  give  no  proof  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Jeremiah,  the  great  prophet  of  the  age  of  Josiah, 
makes  reference  to  this  law  of  Yahweh,  and  it  is  admitted 
that  he  is  full  of  the  spirit  and  ideas  of  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy.  But  he  shows  no  knowledge  of  those 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which  are  now  generally  attrib¬ 
uted  to  a  priestly  writer,  and  presents  no  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  a  Pentateuch  in  his  day,  still  less  of  a 
Pentateuch  written  by  Moses. 

IV. —  The  Testimony  of  the  Exilic  and  Postexilic 

Literature . 

In  the  Psalter  the  only  sacred  writing  referred  to  is 
the  roll  of  the  book  concerning  the  king,  Ps.  xl.  8.  This 
doubtless  points  to  the  law  contained  in  Dt.  xvii.  14  sq ., 
and  gives  evidence  of  a  knowledge*  of  the  Deutero- 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


21 


nomic  code  by  the  writer  of  this  exilic  psalm.  “Law  ” 
in  the  Psalter  is  for  the  most  part  used  in  psalms  of  a 
very  late  postexilic  date. 

We  have  thus  far  found  no  recognition  of  a  Mosaic 
Pentateuch  in  any  writing  prior  to  the  restoration  from 
exile.  We  have  found  nothing  more  than  the  Pentateuch 
itself  gives  us  in  the  passages  cited,  a  Mosaic  law  book 
of  limited  dimensions,  a  covenant  code  and  the  code  of 
Deuteronomy. 

I  shall  first  refer  to  a  passage  from  the  last  of  the 
prophets : 

“  Remember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  servant,  which  I  com¬ 
manded  unto  him  in  Horeb  for  all  Israel,  even  statutes  and 
judgments.”  (Malachi  iv.  4.) 

This  reference  to  the  law  of  Moses  coupled  as  it  is 
with  the  name  Horeb,  if  it  imply  a  written  law, 
refers  to  the  Deuteronomic  code  where  Horeb  is  used  for 
Sinai  of  the  priestly  document  of  the  Hexateuch.  It 
seems  probable  that  in  the  time  of  Malachi,  the  Deu¬ 
teronomic  code  still  existed  as  a  separate  writing. 

The  Chronicler  is  a  late  writer,  not  earlier  than  the 
Greek  period,  some  considerable  time  subsequent  to  the 
reforms  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  when  it  is  admitted  that 
the  Pentateuch  existed  in  its  present  form.  What  then 
is  the  evidence  of  the  Chronicler  on  this  subject  ?  It  is 
evident  that  a  great  variety  of  phrases  is  used  for  law 
by  the  Chronicler.  We  shall  divide  them  into  groups. 

(a).  Words  of  the  Law.  Neh.  viii.  9,  13. 

Portions  of  the  Law.  Neh.  xii.  44. 

The  Law  of  Yahweh.  Ez.  vii.  10;  I  Chron.  xvi. 

40 ;  2  Chron.  xii.  1,  xxxi.  3,  4,  xxxv.  26. 

The  Law  of  God.  Neh.  x.  29,  30. 

The  Law  of  Yahweh  thy  God.  I  Chron.  xxii.  12. 


22 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Book  of  the  Law.  Neh.  viii.  3  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv. 
I5- 

Book  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh  their  God.  Neh. 
ix.  3. 

Book  of  the  Law  of  God.  Neh.  viii.  18. 

Book  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh.  2  Chron.  xvii.  9, 
xxxiv.  14. 

Written  in  the  Law.  Neh.  x.  34,  37. 

In  the  Book  in  the  Law  of  God.  Neh.  viii.  8. 

It  is  evident  that  Mosaic  authorship  cannot  be  proven 
from  these  phrases. 

( b ) .  In  the  Law  which  Yahweh  commanded  by  the 

hand  of  Moses.  Neh.  viii.  14. 

The  Word  that  thou  commandest  thy  servant 
Moses.  Neh.  i.  8. 

All  that  Moses  the  servant  of  God  had  com¬ 
manded.  1  Chron.  vi.  34. 

There  is  nothing  in  these  statements  which  is  not  con¬ 
tained  already  in  the  Pentateuch  itself  with  regard  to 
the  matters  referred  to.  They  do  not  prove  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  only  the  connection 
of  Moses  with  certain  things  in  the  way  of  law  and  pre¬ 
diction  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch. 

(c) .  The  third  group  needs  more  careful  consideration  : 

Law  of  Moses.  2  Chron.  xxx.  16;  Ez.  vii.  6. 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses.  Neh.  viii.  1. 
Written  in  the  Law  of  Moses.  2  Chron.  xxiii. 

18  ;  Ez.  iii.  2;  Dan.  ix.  1 1,  13. 

Written  in  the  Book  of  Moses.  2  Chron.  xxxv. 
12  ;  Ez.  vi.  18. 

Written  in  the  Law  in  the  Book_  of  Moses.  2 
Chron.  xxv.  4. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  23 

The  question  here  arises  whether  the  attachment  of 
the  name  of  Moses  to  this  law  book  implies  Mosaic  au¬ 
thorship  of  the  book  and  all  its  contents,  (i).  Is  it 
certain  that  it  refers  to  our  Pentateuch  ?  Delitzsch, 
who  has  resisted  the  progress  of  the  Higher  Criticism  as 
an  honest,  God-fearing  man,  and  who  has  yielded  only 
when  convinced  by  irresistible  arguments,  says  no.  In 
his  last  volume  on  Genesis,  he  says : 

“  Nowhere  in  the  canonical  literature  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  do  the  terms  1  the  law/  ‘  the  book  of  the  law/ 
‘  the  law  of  Moses/  cover  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form,  not  in  the  history  of  Joshua,  Jos.  i.  8,  or  Jehosh- 
aphat,  2  Chron.  xvii.  9,  not  altogether  even  in  the 
history  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Neh.  viii.  lb.  ”  * 

But  admitting  that  it  refers  to  the  priestly  document, 
or  to  the  whole  Pentateuch,  does  it  imply  Mosaic  author¬ 
ship  in  all  respects?  We  urge  that  it  does  not  imply 
this.  If  the  Chronicler  had  known  the  historic  origin 
and  successive  stages  of  development  in  the  composition 
of  the  Hexateuch  as  we  know  them,  e.  g.  that  we  have 
in  our  Hexateuch  a  Mosaic  code  written  by  Moses  in  a 
book  of  the  covenant  which  appears  in  one  form  in  Ex. 
xx -xxiii.,  and  in  another  form  in  Ex.  xxxiv.,  and  in  a 
book  of  law  in  Dt.  xii.-xxvi.,  and  which  lies  at  the  basis 
of  the  code  of  Holiness  in  Leviticus  and  the  priest’s  code 
in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch ;  and  that  these 
codes  existing  in  four  different  historic  writings  had 
been  compiled  in  the  more  comprehensive  codification 
of  our  Pentateuch  ;  would  he  not  have  been  justified  in 
speaking  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the  book  of  Moses,  the 
law  of  Moses,  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  ?  So  it 
seems  to  some  who  have  carefully  considered  the  whole 


*  p.  13* 


24 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


subject.  Others  may  think  differently,  but  have  they 
any  right  to  force  their  interpretation  upon  us?  The 
critics  base  their  opinion  upon  important  considerations. 
There  is  a  sufficient  number  of  parallels  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Take  for  example  the  name  David  in  the 
titles  of  the  Davidic  psalms.  The  older  theory  was  that 
David  wrote  the  entire  Psalter,  then  the  theory  was  pro¬ 
posed  that  David,  in  the  titles  of  the  psalms,  implied  the 
Davidic  authorship  of  those  particular  psalms.  But  this 
theory  has  to  be  abandoned  because  many  of  these 
psalms  which  bear  the  name  of  David  are  postexilic. 
It  seems  altogether  probable  that  these  psalms  were  all 
taken  from  the  earliest  of  the  minor  psalters,  which  were 
collected  under  the  name  of  David  because  David  was 
the  traditional  master  of  sacred  song.  The  Psalter  of 
David  in  this  ancient  collection  did  not  imply  that  David 
wrote  all  these  psalms,  but  that  his  was  an  appropriate 
name  under  which  to  compile  them.  The  same  is  true 
with  regard  to  that  ancient  collection  of  distichs  which 
bears  the  title  “  Proverbs  of  Solomon.”  (Pr.  x.-xxii.  16.) 
Who  can  believe  that  Solomon  was  the  author  of  them 
all?  He  was  the  master  of  sacred  wisdom  and  under  his 
name  it  was  appropriate  to  compile  a  collection  of  wis¬ 
dom.  Why  may  we  not  conclude  that  the  Chronicler, 
who  wrote  after  these  three  compilations  had  been 
made,  of  the  minor  psalter  of  David,  the  proverbs  of  Sol¬ 
omon,  and  the  laws  of  Moses,  used  these  three  names  in 
exactly  the  same  way  ;  and  that  he  knew  that  no  one  of 
the  three  implied  authorship,  but  only  that  Moses  was 
the  father  of  the  law,  as  David  was  the  father  of  the 
psalmody,  and  Solomon  the  father  of  the  wisdom? 
Some  may  not  be  able  to  explain  these  things  as  we  do, 
but  if  they  do  not,  have  they  any  right  to  force  their 
interpretation  of  these  facts  upon  us?  All  these 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


25 


phrases  refer  to  the  law.  But  what  about  the  history? 
If  the  book  is  called  the  law  of  Moses,  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  does  that  imply  that  all  the  history  in  the 
book  was  written  by  Moses?  Are  we  compelled  to  con¬ 
clude  that  nothing  could  have  been  written  in  the  book 
except  what  came  from  Moses  or  was  compiled  by 
Moses?  Those  who  insist  upon  interpreting  such 
phrases  in  such  a  way  as  to  force  belief  in  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  when  they  are  capable  of 
another  interpretation  and  are  given  that  explanation  by 
Christian  scholars  of  the  highest  rank,  and  by  those  pre¬ 
eminent  in  Biblical  learning,  should  beware  lest  they 
risk  the  canonicity  of  the  writings  of  the  Chronicler  by 
bringing  him  in  conflict  with  the  mass  of  evidence  that 
may  be  presented  from  the  Pentateuch  itself  to  show 
that,  if  the  Chronicler  held  their  opinion,  he  was  alto¬ 
gether  mistaken. 

V. —  The  Testimony  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  evidence  from  the  New  Testament  may  be  dis¬ 
tributed  in  five  sections  and  summed  up  as  follows: 

(i).  Jesus  speaks  of  the  law  of  Moses,  Luke  xxiv. 
44,  John  vii.  23  ;  and  the  book  of  Moses,  Mark  xii.  26. 
Moses  is  used  for  the  Pentateuch,  Acts  xv.  21  ;  2  Cor. 
iii.  15.  These  are  all  cases  of  naming  books  cited. 

These  passages  must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with 
usage.  It  is  the  custom  in  literature  to  name  anonymous 
writings  after  the  name  of  the  chief  character  in  it,  or  the 
theme  of  it ;  and  then  in  that  case  it  is  quite  common  to 
personify  the  book  and  represent  it  as  saying  or  teach¬ 
ing  this  or  that.  When  Jesus  uses  Moses  as  another  name 
for  the  Law  or  Pentateuch,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that 
Jesus  meant  to  say  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch. 
The  Book  of  Esther  is  named  Esther  not  because  any 


26 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


one  ever  supposed  that  she  wrote  it ;  but  because  she  is 
the  heroine,  the  theme  of  the  book,  and  when  one  says,  as 
it  is  often  said,  “  Esther  never  uses  the  name  of  God, 
or  teaches  any  doctrine  of  faith,”  you  understand  him 
as  using  Esther  for  the  book  Esther. 

No  one  ever  supposed  that  Ruth  wrote  the  book  of 
Ruth,  or  would  suppose  that  she  was  regarded  as  its  author 
if  one  should  say,  as  it  has  often  been  said,“  Ruth  teaches  a 
doctrine  different  from  Deuteronomy  and  Ezra  in  rep¬ 
resenting  that  even  a  Moabitish  woman  may  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God.”  The  usage  of  the  New  Testament  is 
also  sufficiently  clear  at  these  points.  Thus  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  iv.  7  uses  David  as  a  name  of  the 
Psalter.  It  was  a  common  opinion  until  the  18th  cen¬ 
tury  that  David  wrote  all  the  psalms,  but  no  Biblical 
scholar  at  present,  so  far  as  is  known,  thinks  that  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  forces  him  to  hold  that  David  is 
the  author  of  the  entire  Psalter.  Why  then  should  any 
one  insist  that  when  the  name  Moses  is  given  to  the 
Pentateuch,  it  implies  that  Moses  wrote  all  the  writings 
attributed  to  him  by  tradition? 

(2).  Jesus  represents  Moses  as  a  law-giver,  giving  the 
Ten  Commandments,  Markvii.  10;  the  law  of  the  lepers’ 
offering,  Mark  i.  44,  etc.;  the  law  of  divorce,  Matt.  xix. 
7-8 ;  the  law  of  raising  up  seed  for  the  brother’s  wife, 
Luke  xx.  28;  the  law  in  general,  John  vii.  19.  The 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  represents  Moses  as  giving  the 
law  of  priesthood,  Heb.  vii.  14,  and  as  a  law-giver  whose 
law  could  not  be  disobeyed  with  impunity,  Heb.  x.  28. 
These  passages  all  represent  Moses  to  be  the  law-giver 
that  he  appears  to  be  in  the  narratives  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  but  do  not,  by  any  means,  imply  the  authorship 
of  those  narratives  that  contain  these  laws,  any  more 
than  the  reference  in  1  Cor.  ix.  14,  to  the  command  of 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


27 


Christ  in  Luke  x.  7,  and  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s 
supper  by  Jesus,  1  Cor.  xi.  23  seq .,  imply  that  Jesus  was 
the  author  of  the  gospels  containing  his  words. 

(3) .  Jesus  represents  Moses  as  a  prophet  who  wrote 
of  him,  John  v.  46,  47,  so  Philip,  John  i.  45,  Peter,  Acts 
iii.  22-24,  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  37,  Paul,  Acts  xxvi.  22  ;  and 
in  Rom.  x.  5,  19,  the  apostle  refers  to  the  address  in 
Deut.  xxx.,  and  the  song,  Deut.  xxxii.  These  passages 
may  prove  that  certain  prophecies  came  from  Moses,  but 
do  not  prove  that  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  or  the 
narratives  in  which  these  prophecies  occur,  were  written 
by  Moses. 

(4) .  Certain  historical  events  narrated  in  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  in  which  Moses  takes  the  lead  are  mentioned  in 
Luke  xx.  37;  Heb.  viii.  5;  ix.  19,  xii.  21,  etc.,  but 
these  simply  teach  the  historical  character  of  the  trans¬ 
actions,  not  the  exclusive  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
writings  containing  these  historical  incidents.* 

(5) .  In  Acts  iii.  24,  it  is  said,  “  All  the  prophets  from 
Samuel  and  them  that  followed  after,  as  many  as  have 
spoken,  they  also  told  of  those  days.”  But  Samuel 
uttered  no  Messianic  prophecy  in  the  book  of  Samuel. 
The  name  Samuel  is  used  as  the  name  of  the  book,  and 
the  name  of  the  book  is  personified  and  represented  as 
speaking  the  prophecy  which  in  the  book  is  attributed 
to  the  prophet  Nathan.  If  now  Samuel  as  the  name  of 
the  book  may  be  represented  by  the  apostle  Peter  as 
speaking  the  prophecy  of  Nathan,  why  may  not  Moses 
as  the  name  of  the  book  of  Moses  be  represented  as 
giving  the  exhortations  of  an  unknown  prophet  con¬ 
tained  in  the  book  which  bears  his  name?  It  is 
quite  true  that  an  ancient  Jewish  tradition  in  the 


*  See  Biblical  Study ,  pp.  192-193. 


28 


THE  IIEXATEUCH 


Talmud  represents  that  Samuel  wrote  his  book,  but  a 
later  writer  in  the  Talmud  itself  comments  on  the 
statement  that  Samuel  wrote  his  book  thus :  “  ‘  But  it  is 
written  there :  and  Samuel  died,  and  they  buried  him 
in  Rama.’  Gad  the  seer  and  Nathan  the  prophet 
finished  it.”  In  other  words,  the  book  was  begun  by 
Samuel  and  completed  by  Nathan  and  Gad.  It  may  be 
that  there  are  some  persons  at  the  present  time  who 
would  accept  this  Talmudic  comment  on  the  older 
Talmudic  tradition,  but  certainly  no  one  believes  that 
Samuel  recorded  Nathan’s  prophecy  delivered  long  after 
Samuel’s  death,  and  this  is  just  the  prophecy  that  Peter 
represents  Samuel  as  speaking. 

But  some  one  will  say,  “  Was  it  not  the  common 
opinion  in  the  days  of  our  Lord  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch?”  We  answer  that,  so  far  as  we  know,  it  was 
the  common  opinion  that  David  wrote  the  Psalter.  As 
to  the  Pentateuch,  opinion  was  divided  whether  it  was 
lost  when  the  temple  was  destroyed  by  the  king  of 
Babylon,  and  restored  or  recast  by  Ezra,  or  not.  If 
you  insist  upon  interpreting  the  New  Testament  by  the 
opinion  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  as  regards  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  you  must  follow  it  also  as  regards  the  Psalter. 
But  why  should  we  interpret  Jesus  and  His  apostles  by 
the  opinions  of  the  Jews  of  His  time?  Why  should  we 
suppose  that  He  shared  with  them  all  the  errors  He  did 
not  oppose  and  refute?  Jesus  either  knew  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  He  did  not  know.  (a).  If  we 
should  say  Jesus  did  not  know  whether  Moses  wrote 
the  Pentateuch  or  not,  we  would  not  go  beyond  His 
own  saying  that  He  knew  not  the  time  of  His  own 
advent.  Those  who  understand  the  doctrine  of  the 
humiliation  of  Christ  and  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  find 
no  more  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Jesus  did  not  know 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


29 


the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  than  that  He  did  not 
know  the  day  of  His  own  advent.  As  Charles  Gore 
says : 

“When  he  speaks  of  the  ‘sun-rising’  He  is  using  ordinary 
language.  He  shows  no  signs  at  all  of  transcending  the  science 
of  His  age.  Equally  He  shows  no  signs  of  transcending  the 
History  of  His  age.  .  .  .  The  utterances  of  Christ  about  the  Old 
Testament  do  not  seem  to  be  nearly  definite  or  clear  enough  to 
allow  of  our  supposing  that  in  this  case  He  is  departing  from 
the  general  method  of  the  incarnation,  by  bringing  to  bear  the 
unveiled  omniscience  of  the  Godhead  to  anticipate  or  foreclose  a 
development  of  natural  knowledge.”  {Lux  Mundi ,  p.  360.) 

(b).  If  on  the  other  hand  any  one  should  say  Jesus 
must  have  known  all  things  and  He  ought  not  to  have 
used  language  that  might  deceive  men,  we  respond  that 
His  language  does  not  deceive  men.  Literary  usage  in 
all  ages  and  in  the  Bible  itself  shows  that  it  is  equally 
true  and  good  language  for  the  critics  as  for  the  anti¬ 
critics.  The  question  is,  shall  we  interpret  the  words  of 
Jesus  by  the  opinions  of  His  contemporaries?  This  we 
deny.  Jesus  was  not  obliged  to  correct  all  the  errors  of 
His  contemporaries.  He  did  not  correct  their  false 
views  of  science.  He  was  the  great  physician,  but  He 
did  not  teach  medicine.  He  was  greater  than  Solomon, 
and  yet  He  declined  to  decide  questions  of  civil  law 
and  politics.  He  never  rebuked  slavery.  Is  He  re¬ 
sponsible  for  slavery  on  that  account?  The  Southern 
slaveholders  used  to  say  so.  But  even  they  are  now 
convinced  of  their  error.  The  signs  of  the  times  indi¬ 
cate  that  in  a  few  years  the  anti-critics  will  disap¬ 
pear  as  completely  as  the  slaveholders.  The  attempt  to 
bar  the  way  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  by  interposing  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  is  an  unworthy  attempt  to  make  our  Lord  and 


30 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


His  apostles  responsible  for  those  conceits  and  follies  of 
ancient  tradition  which  modern  traditional  dogma  has 
with  great  unwisdom  accepted  and  endorsed. 

We  have  gone  over  the  evidence  from  Holy  Scripture 
and  have  found  no  direct  testimony  sufficiently  explicit 
to  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  But 
we  have  found  indirect  evidence  to  show  that  much  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  of  a  date  considerably  later  than 
Moses. 


III. 

THE  TRADITIONAL  THEORIES. 

We  shall  now  consider  the  evidence  from  Tradition. 
The  earliest  Rabbinical  theory  of  the  Old  Testament 
Literature  known  to  us  is  contained  in  the  Tract  Baba 
Bathra  of  the  Talmud.  The  Beraitha  reads  as  follows : 

“  Moses  wrote  his  book,  the  chapter  of  Balaam,  and  Job ; 
Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  the  eight  verses  of  the  Law  ;  *  Samuel 
wrote  his  book  and  Judges  and  Ruth  ;  David  wrote  the  book  of 
the  Psalms  with  the  aid  of  ten  ancients,  with  the  aid  of  Adam 
the  first,  Melchizedek,  Abraham,  Moses,  Heman,  Jeduthun,  Asaph 
and  the  three  sons  of  Korah  ;  Jeremiah  wrote  his  book,  the  book 
of  Kings  and  Lamentations ;  Hezekiah  and  his  company  wrote  • 
Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes ;  the  men  of 
the  great  synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  (minor  proph¬ 
ets),  Daniel  and  the  roll  of  Esther;  Ezra  wrote  his  book  and  the 
genealogy  of  Chronicles  until  himself.”  * 

Thus  this  tract  assigns  writers  to  all  the  Biblical  books. 
But  it  is  very  clear  that  “  write  ”  in  this  passage  does 
not  mean  compose  of  authorship,  but  commit  to  writing, 
whether  by  the  author  himself  or  others.  Thus  only  can 
we  explain  the  writing  of  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of 
Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes  by  Hezekiah  and  his  company ; 
and  of  Ezekiel,  the  minor  prophets  and  the  roll  of  Esther, 


*  See  Biblical  Study ,  p.  176. 


(3D 


32 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


by  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue.  If  this  be  true  in 
these  cases  we  cannot  be  sure  that  it  is  not  true  in  the 
other  cases  also.  This  statement  of  the  Mishna  is 
enlarged  upon  by  the  Gemara. 

“The  author  (of  the  Beraitha)  said,  Joshua  wrote  his  book  and 
the  eight  verses  of  the  law ;  this  is  taught  according  to  him  who 
says  of  the  eight  verses  of  the  law,  Joshua  wrote  them.  For  it  is 
taught :  And  Moses,  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  died  there.  How 
is  it  possible  that  Moses  died  and  wrote :  and  Moses  died  there  ? 
It  is  only  unto  this  passage  Moses  wrote,  afterwards  Joshua 
wrote  the  rest.  These  are  the  words  of  Rabbi  Jehuda.  Others 
say  of  Rabbi  Nehemiah.  But  Rabbi  Simeon  said  to  him:  Is  it 
possible  that  the  book  of  the  law  could  lack  one  letter,  since  it 
is  written  :  Take  this  book  of  the  law  ?  It  is  only  unto  this  the 
Holy  One,  blessed  be  He  !  said,  and  Moses  said  and  wrote.  From 
this  place  and  onwards  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He !  said,  and 
Moses  wrote  with  weeping.” 

The  Talmud  elsewhere  contains  other  conflicting  state¬ 
ments,  which  cannot,  however,  claim  the  antiquity  or 
authority  of  the  passage  cited  above. 

The  ordinary  Jewish  view  is  that  Moses  also  wrote 
the  last  eight  verses  by  divine  dictation.* 

A  still  more  ancient  and  higher  authority  in  some 
respects  is  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  f  from  the  first 
Christian  century,  printed  among  the  Apocryphal  books 
in  the  English  Bible,  and  preserved  in  five  versions,  and 
used  not  infrequently  by  the  Fathers  as  if  it  were  in¬ 
spired  Scripture.  This  tradition  represents  that  the 
Law  and  all  the  holy  books  were  burned  at  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  lost ;  that  Ezra 
under  divine  inspiration  restored  them  all,  and  also  com¬ 
posed  seventy  others  to  be  delivered  to  the  wise  as  the 

*  See  Wogue,  Histoire  de  la  Bible ,  1881,  p.  21,  sq.  ;  Josephus,  Antiquities, 
iv.  8,  48  ;  Philo,  Life  of  Moses,  iii.,'39. 

f  xiv.  19-46. 


THE  TRADITIONAL  THEORIES 


33 


esoteric  wisdom  for  the  interpretation  of  the  twenty- 
four. 

This  view  of  the  restoration  of  the  Old  Testament 
tvritings  by  Ezra  was  advocated  by  some  of  the  Fathers 
such  as  Clement  of  Alexandria,*  Tertullian,f  Chrysos¬ 
tom,^:  in  an  anonymous  writing  wrongly  attributed  to 
Augustine, §  and  the  Clementine  Homilies.]  Another 
common  opinion  of  the  Fathers  is  represented  by  Ire- 
naeus.^f 

“  During  the  captivity  of  the  people  under  Nabuchadnezzar, 
the  Scriptures  had  been  corrupted,  and  when,  after  seventy  years, 
the  Jews  had  returned  to  their  own  land,  then  in  the  time  of 
Artaxerxes,  King  of  the  Persians,  (God)  inspired  Esdras,  the 
priest  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  recast  all  the  words  of  former 
prophets,  and  to  re-establish  with  the  people  the  Mosaic  legis¬ 
lation.” 

With  him  agree  Theodoret * * §  **  and  Basil. ff  Jerome 
says  with  reference  to  this  tradition  :  “  Whether  you  wish 
to  say  that  Moses  is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  that 
Ezra  restored  it,  is  indifferent  to  me.”  Bellarmin  §§  is 
of  the  opinion  that  the  books  of  the  Jews  were  not 
entirely  lost,  but  that  Ezra  corrected  those  that  had 
become  corrupted,  and  improved  the  copies  he  restored. 
Junilius,  in  the  sixth  century,  author  of  the  first  extant 
Introduction,! |  a  reproduction  of  a  lost  work  of  his 
instructor,  Paul  of  Nisibis,  of  the  Antiochian  school  of 
Exegesis,  makes  the  wise  discrimination  between  those 
Scriptures  having  their  authors  indicated  in  their  titles 
and  introductions,  and  those  whose  authorship  rested 


*  Stromata ,  i.,  22.  f  De  cultu  foejninarum ,  c.  3. 

X  Horn.  viii. ,  in  Epist.  Hebraeos ,  Migne’s  edition,  xvii.,  p  74. 

§  De  Mirabilibus  Sacree  Scriptures ,  ii. ,  33.  ||  iii.,  c.  47. 

1  Adv.  Haereses,  iii.,  21,  2.  **  Praef  in  Psahnos. 

ft  Epist.  ad  Chilonem,  Migne’s  edition,  iv.,  p.  358.  %%  Adv.  Helvitium. 

§§  De  Verbo  Dei ,  lib.  2.  ||||  Institutio  regular  is  Divines  Legis. 


34 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


purely  on  tradition,  in  the  latter  including  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  and  Joshua.*  This  position  of  Junilius  is  the 
true  scholarly  position.  It  puts  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  on  the  same  level  as  the  authorship  of  the 
other  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  work 
of  Junilius  held  its  own  as  an  authority  in  the  Western 
Church  until  the  Reformation.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
define  a  consensus  of  the  Fathers  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Little  attention  was  given  to  such  topics  in  the  six¬ 
teenth  century.  How  the  Reformers  would  have  met 
these  questions  we  may  infer  from  their  freedom  with 
regard  to  traditional  views  in  the  few  cases  in  which 
they  expressed  themselves. 

Luther  denied  the  Apocalypse  to  John,  and  Eccle¬ 
siastes  to  Solomon.  He  maintained  that  the  epistle  of 
James  was  not  an  apostolic  writing.  He  regarded  Jude 
as  an  extract  from  2d  Peter,  and  asks  what  it  matters  if 
Moses  should  not  himself  have  written  the  Pentateuch.f 
Calvin  denied  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  doubted  the  Petrine  authorship  of  2d 
Peter.  He  held  that  Ezra  or  some  one  else  edited  the 
Psalter,  and  regarded  Ezra  as  the  author  of  Malachi, 
Malachi  being  his  surname.  He  also  constructed  a 
harmony  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  after  the  model 
of  the  Harmony  of  the  Gospels. 

Questions  of  human  authorship  and  date  of  Biblical 
writings  troubled  the  Reformers  but  little.  They  had 
to  battle  against  the  Vulgate  for  the  original  text  and 
popular  versions,  and  for  a  simple  grammatical  exegesis 
over  against  traditional  authority  and  the  manifold 

*  See  Kihn,  Theodor  von  Mof>suestza,  ss.  319-330,  §  viii. ,  2. 

t  Vorreden  in  Walch’s  edition  of  Luther’s  Werken ,  xiy.,  pp.  35,  146-153, 
Tischreden,  I.,  p.  28. 


THE  TRADITIONAL  THEORIES 


35 


sense.  Hence  it  is  that  on  these  literary  questions  the 
symbols  of  the  Reformation  take  no  position  whatever 
except  to  lay  stress  upon  the  sublimity  of  the  style,  the 
unity  and  harmony  of  Scripture,  and  the  internal  evi¬ 
dence  of  its  inspiration  and  authority. 

The  Westminster  standards  are  in  entire  accord  with 
the  other  Reformed  Confessions  and  the  faith  of  the 
Reformation  on  these  subjects.  They  express  a  devout 
admiration  and  profound  reverence  for  the  holy,  majes¬ 
tic  character  and  style  of  the  divine  Word,  but  do  not 
define  the  human  authors  and  dates  of  the  various  writ¬ 
ings.  As  Prof.  A.  F.  Mitchell,  of  St.  Andrew’s,  well 
states  : 

“  Any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  their  list  of 
the  canonical  books  with  that  given  in  the  Belgian  Confession  or 
the  Irish  articles,  may  satisfy  himself  that  they  held  with  Dr. 
Jameson  that  the  authority  of  these  books  does  not  depend  on 
the  fact  whether  this  prophet  or  that  wrote  a  particular  book  or 
parts  of  a  book,  whether  a  certain  portion  was  derived  from  the 
Elohist  or  the  Jehovist,  whether  Moses  wrote  the  close  of  Deute¬ 
ronomy,  Solomon  was  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  or  Paul  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  in  the  fact  that  a  prophet,  an  in¬ 
spired  man,  wrote  them,  and  that  they  bear  the  stamp  and  im¬ 
press  of  a  divine  origin.”  Minutes  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
p.  xlix. 

And  Matthew  Poole,  the  great  Presbyterian  critic  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  quotes  with  approval  the  fol¬ 
lowing  from  Melchior  Canus  : 

“  It  is  not  much  material  to  the  Catholick  faith  that  any  book 
was  written  by  this  or  that  author,  so  long  as  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  believed  to  be  the  author  of  it ;  which  Gregory  delivers  and 
explains  :  For  it  matters  not  with  what  pen  the  King  writes  his 
letter,  if  it  be  true  that  he  writ  it.”  Blow  at  the  Root,  4th  ed., 
1671,  p.  228. 


IV. 


THE  RISE  OF  CRITICISM. 

The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  was  first  ques¬ 
tioned  in  modern  times  by  Carlstadt,*  who  left  the  author 
undetermined.  The  Roman  Catholic  scholar  Masius,  and 
the  British  philosopher  Hobbes  distinguished  between 
Mosaic  originals  and  our  present  Pentateuch,  but  the 
Roman  Catholic  priest  Peyrerius,f  and  especially  Spi¬ 
noza,^:  first  arranged  the  objections  to  the  Mosaic  author¬ 
ship  in  formidable  array,  the  latter  reviving  the  doubts 
of  Aben  Ezra. 

They  presented  evidence  against  the  Mosaic  author¬ 
ship  from  1 8  different  passages  as  follows.  We  shall 
classify  them  and  test  them. 

I. —  Historical  Objections. 

(1) .  Gen.  xii.  6.  “  The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 

land  ”  implies  a  time  when  this  was  not  the  case,  that  is 
centuries  after  the  conquest  by  Joshua. 

(2) .  Gen.  xiv.  14.  “And  pursued  as  far  as  Dan.” 
But  Dan  did  not  receive  this  name  until  long  after  the 
death  of  Moses;  for  Judges  xviii.  29  tells  us  that  the 

*  De  Scriptor.  Canon,  §  85,  1521. 

+  In  his  Syst.  Theo.  Praead.,  1660,  liv.,  cap.  1. 

\  In  his  Tract,  Theo .  Polit.,  1670,  c.  8. 

(36) 


.THE  RISE  OF  CRITICISM 


37 


Danites  in  the  times  of  the  Judges  “  called  the  name  of 
the  city  Dan,  after  the  name  of  Dan  their  father  who 
was  born  unto  Israel ;  howbeit  the  name  of  the  city 
was  Laish  at  the  first.” 

(3) .  Gen.  xxxvi.  gives  a  list  of  kings  reigning  in 
Edom:  “before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  Israel.”  (Ver.  31).  This  implies  an  author  living 
after  the  establishment  of  kings  in  Israel  not  earlier  than 
the  Hebrew  monarchy. 

(4) .  Ex.  xvi.  35.  “And  the  children  of  Israel  did 
eat  the  manna  forty  years,  until  they  came  to  a  land  in¬ 
habited  ;  they  did  eat  the  manna,  until  they  came  unto 
the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan.”  This  passage  im¬ 
plies  the  entrance  into  Canaan  after  the  death  of  Moses 
and  the  author’s  knowledge  of  the  event  described  in 
Jos.  v.  12. 

(5) .  Deut.  i.  1.  “These  be  the  words  which  Moses 
spake  unto  all  Israel  beyond  Jordan  ”  implies  an  author 
who  was  in  Palestine,  for  only  such  an  one  could  write 
“  beyond  Jordan.” 

(6) .  Deut.  ii.  12.  The  children  of  Esau  destroyed 
the  Horites  and  dwelt  in  their  stead  “  as  Israel  did  unto 
the  land  of  his  possession  which  Yahweh  gave  unto 
them.”  This  implies  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 

(7) .  Deut.  iii.  11.  “For  only  Og,  king  of  Bashan, 
remained  of  the  remnant  of  the  Rephaim ;  behold,  his 
bedstead  was  a  bedstead  of  iron  ;  is  it  not  in  Rabbah  of 
the  children  of  Ammon?”  This  implies  a  writer  look¬ 
ing  back  upon  the  story  of  the  conquest  of  Bashan  from 
a  date  much  later  than  Moses. 

(8) .  Deut.  iii.  14.  “And  called  them  after  his  own 
name  Havvoth-jair  unto  this  day.”  This  implies  a  day 
long  after  this  naming  which  was  made  in  the  last  days 
of  Moses. 


38 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


(9) .  Deut.  xxxiv.  10.  “  And  there  hath  not  arisen 

a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses.”  This  implies 
a  time  long  subsequent  to  Moses. 

These  are  all  historical  statements  which  are  incon¬ 
sistent  with  Mosaic  authorship.  Either  then  they  are 
notes  of  later  editors,  or  else  the  writings  which  contain 
them  must  be  later  than  the  history  implied  in  them. 
Two  other  instances  have  not  altogether  stood  the  test 
of  criticism. 

(10) .  Gen.  xxii.  14.  Mt.  Moriah  is  called  the 
mount  of  God,  which  could  not  be  so  called  until  the 
erection  of  the  temple.  This  objection  rests  upon  a 
mistake.  It  is  not  called  the  Mount  of  Yahweh,  but  the 
place  is  called  “  Yahweh  sees.”  As  it  is  said  to  this  day, 
“  in  the  mount  where  Yahweh  appears.”  This  proverbial 
expression,  however,  implies  a  long  sojourn  in  the  Holy 
Land,  and,  therefore,  a  period  long  subsequent  to  Moses. 

(11) .  Deut.  ii.  5.  “Not  so  much  as  for  the  sole  of 
the  foot  to  tread  on,”  when  compared  with  1  Chron. 
xviii.,  where  David  conquers  Edom,  shows  an  inconsist¬ 
ency,  and  doubtless  implies  a  time  when  Israel  was 
friendly  with  Edom,  but  does  not  in  itself  imply  a  later 
date  than  Moses. 

II. — Indications  of  Special  Authorship. 

(12) .  Num.  xxi.  14.  The  citation  of  the  book  of 
the  wars  of  Yahweh  implies  another  author  than  Moses. 

(13) .  Deut.  xxvii.  2  seq.,  comp.  Jos.  viii.  30  seq.,  where 
the  law  was  written  on  an  altar,  implies  a  law  much  less 
extensive  than  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  now  generally 
agreed  that  the  reference  here  is  to  the  Deuteronomic 
code. 


THE  RISE  OF  CRITICISM 


39 


III. —  Inconsistencies. 

(14) .  Deut.  x.  8,  which  narrates  the  separation  of 
the  Levites  at  Jotbathah  is  inconsistent  with  their  separa¬ 
tion  before  the  death  of  Aaron  as  reported  in  Leviticus 
and  Numbers. 

(15) .  Ex.  iv.  20,  which  represents  that  Moses  took 
his  family  with  him  to  Egypt,  is  inconsistent  with  Ex. 
xviii.  2  seq.y  which  states  that  they  remained  with  his 
father-in-law  in  Midian.  Modern  critics  explain  these 
variations  as  due  to  the  different  stories  of  the  same 
thing  recorded  in  different  documents. 

IV. —  Personal  Considerations. 

(16) .  Ex.  xxxiii.  11.  “Yahweh  spake  unto  Moses 
face  to  face.” 

(17) .  Num.  xii.  3.  “Now  the  man  Moses  was  very 
meek,  above  all  the  men  which  were  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth.” 

(18) .  Deut.  xxxi.  9.  “And  Moses  wrote  this  law.” 

Several  other  passages — Num.  i.  1  ;  ii.  2  ;  v.  1  ;  xxxi. 

14;  Deut.  xxxi.  1,  9;  xxxiii.  1,  where  Moses  is  spoken 
of  in  the  third  person  and  sometimes  in  flattering  terms. 

Some  of  these  might  be  accounted  for  after  the  anal¬ 
ogy  of  the  classic  historians  as  a  variation  of  style,  but 
the  laudatory  references  are  not  to  be  explained  in  this 
way  and  therefore  count  against  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  them.  We  are  therefore  compelled  either  to  take  them 
as  editorial  notes,  or,  as  this  is  difficult  if  not  impossible  in 
many  of  these  cases,  to  regard  them  as  from  documents 
written  by  other  persons  than  Moses. 

These  objections  of  Peyrerius  and  Spinoza  are  of  an 
external  character.  A  few  of  them  have  been  satisfac¬ 
torily  explained  and  their  force  dulled  ;  others  have  been 


40 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


admitted  as  implying  the  work  of  later  editors.  The 
most  of  them  have  maintained  their  validity. 

Soon  after  Spinoza,  Richard  Simon,  a  Roman  Catholic, 
published  his  work  on  the  Historical  Criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament.*  He  first  began  to  apply  historical  crit¬ 
icism  in  a  systematic  manner  to  the  study  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  He  represented  the  historical 
books  as  made  up  of  the  ancient  writings  of  the  proph¬ 
ets,  who  were  public  scribes,  and  who  wrote  down  the 
history  in  official  documents  on  the  spot,  from  the  time 
of  Moses  onward,  so  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
shape  is  not  by  Moses.  Simon  distinguished  in  the 
Pentateuch  between  that  which  was  written  by  Moses, 
e.g.,  the  commands  and  ordinances  ;  and  that  written  by 
the  prophetical  scribes,  the  greater  part  of  the  history. 
As  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  were  made  up  by 
abridgments  and  summaries  of  the  ancient  acts  preserved 
in  the  archives  of  the  nation,  so  was  the  Pentateuch. f 
The  later  prophets  edited  the  works  of  the  earlier  proph¬ 
ets  and  added  explanatory  statements.  Simon  pre¬ 
sents  as  evidences  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Penta¬ 
teuch:  (i).  The  double  account* of  the  deluge.  (2). 
The  lack  of  order  in  the  arrangement  of  the  narratives 
and  laws.  (3).  The  diversity  of  the  style. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Roman  Catholic  scholar  goes 
deeper  into  the  subject  than  the  philosopher  Spinoza 
had  gone.  He  presents  another  class  of  evidences. 
These  three  lines  were  not  sufficiently  worked  by  Simon. 
He  fell  into  the  easy  temptation  of  expending  his 
strength  on  the  elaboration  and  justification  of  his 
theory.  The  facts  he  discovered  have  proved  of  perma¬ 
nent  value,  and  have  been  worked  as  a  rich  mine  by  later 


*  Hisioire  Critique  de  Vieux  Testamenty  1678. 


+  /.  c.f  p.  17,  seq. 


THE  RISE  OF  CRITICISM 


41 


scholars,  but  his  theory  was  at  once  attacked  and  de¬ 
stroyed.  The  Arminian  Clericus,  in  an  anonymous 
work,* * * §  assailed  Simon  for  his  abuse  of  Protestant  writers, 
but  really  went  to  greater  lengths  than  Simon.  He  dis¬ 
tinguishes  in  the  Pentateuch  three  classes  of  facts,  those 
before  Moses,  those  during  his  time,  and  those  subse¬ 
quent  to  his  death,f  and  represents  the  Pentateuch  in 
its  present  form  as  composed  by  the  priest  sent  from 
Babylon  to  instruct  the  inhabitants  of  Samaria  in  the 
religion  of  the  land,  2  Kings  xvii4  Afterward  he  gave 
up  this  theory  and  took  the  ground  §  of  interpolations  by 
a  later  editor.  Anton  Van  Dale, |[  distinguishes  between 
the  Mosaic  code  and  the  Pentateuch,  which  latter  Ezra 
composed  from  other  writings,  historical  and  prophetical, 
inserting  the  Mosaic  code  as  a  whole  in  his  work.  This 
was  also  essentially  the  view  of  Semler.T 

These  various  writers  brought  to  light  a  most  valuable 
collection  of  facts  which  demanded  the  attention  of 
Biblical  scholars  of  all  creeds  and  phases  of  thought. 
They  all  made  the  mistake  of  proposing  untenable 
theories  of  various  kinds  to  account  for  the  facts,  instead 
of  working  upon  the  facts  and  rising  from  them  by  in¬ 
duction  and  generalization  to  permanent  results.  Some 
of  them,  like  Spinoza  and  Hobbes,  were  animated  by  a 
spirit  more  or  less  hostile  to  the  evangelical  faith. 
Others,  like  Carlstadt  and  Clericus,  were  heterodox  in 
other  matters.  The  most  important  investigations  were 


*  Sentiment  de  quelques  theologiens  de  Holland  sur  VHistoire  Critique , 

Amst.,  1685. 

+  /.  c.,  p.  107.  X  P«  I29* 

§  Com.  on  Genesis ,  introd.  de  Scriptore  Pent .,  §  n.  Simon  replied  to  Cle¬ 
ricus  in  Riponse  au  Livre  intitule  Sentimens ,  etc.  Par  Le  Preur  de  Bolleville, 
Rotterdam,  1686. 

|  De  origineet  progressu  idol.,  1696  (p.  71),  and  epist.  ad  Morin,  (p.  686). 

If  Apparatus  ad  Liber alem  Vet.  Test.  Interp.,  1773  (p.  67). 


42 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


those  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  Masius  and  Simon.  These 
authors,  in  a  Church  noted  for  its  adherence  to  tradition, 
felt  that  they  were  free  on  this  question  of  the  author¬ 
ship  of  the  Pentateuch,  there  being  no  consensus  of  the 
Fathers  against  them. 

The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  was  de¬ 
fended  by  Huet,  a  Jesuit;*  Heidegger,  a  divine  of  the 
Reformed  Church  of  Switzerland  ;f  the  Dutch  Re¬ 
formed,  Maresius4  and  the  German  Lutheran,  Carpzov.§ 
These  scholastic  divines,  instead  of  seeking  to  account 
for  the  facts  brought  to  light  by  the  critics,  proceeded  to 
defend  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire  Pentateuch 
and  to  explain  away  these  facts.  Thus,  Huet  is  unwill¬ 
ing  to  admit  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  account  of 
his  own  death.  Maresius  insists  that  the  testimony  of 
Christ  decides  the  matter  for  us.  Heidegger  argues  that 
the  whole  Pentateuch  was  found  by  Hilkiah  .in  the 
temple  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  that  Christ  and  His  apos¬ 
tles  ascribe  the  Pentateuch  to  Moses  as  author,  and  he 
follows  the  Rabbinical  tradition,  rejecting  the  traditions 
prevalent  with  the  Christian  fathers.  He  admits  that 
the  last  verses  of  Deuteronomy  were  added  by  Joshua 
or  some  one  else,  but  explains  Gen.  xxii.  14  as  a  proph¬ 
ecy  of  the  temple  or  of  seeing  Christ  in  the  flesh,  and 
the  kings  of  Edom  prior  to  kings  in  Israel,  Gen.  xxxvi. 
31,  as  a  line  of  kings  prior  to  Moses  as  king.  He  meets 
the  argument  from  diversity  of  style  by  the  remark  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  might  inspire  the  same  author  to  use  a 


*  Demonstratio  Evangelica ,  1679,  iv.,  cap.  xiv. 
f  Exercitiones  Biblicce ,  1700,  Dissert,  ix. 

\  Praef.  apol.pro  authentia  script.,  pp.  23-36.  And  in  his  Refutatio F alula 
Prceadamitica ,  Gronigse,  1656,  he  meets  the  various  arguments  of  Peyrerius. 

%  hitroductio  ad  Libros  Canonicos ,  Bib.  Vet.  Test.,  Edit.  2,  Lipsae  1731. 
See  also  Du  Pin  Dissert,  prelim.  Bib .  des  auteurs  eccl.,  Paris,  1688. 


THE  RISE  OF  CRITICISM 


43 


variety  of  styles.* * * §  He  meets  the  argument  from  defect¬ 
ive  arrangement  by  representing  it  as  a  charge  against 
the  Holy  Spirit. f  Carpzov  calls  in  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
to  account  for  the  kings  of  Edom  (Gen.  xxxvi.  31),  and 
the  account  of  the  continuation  of  the  manna  until  the 
conquest  (Ex.  xvi.  35).  Such  special  pleading  and  arbi¬ 
trary  conjectures  were  as  hurtful  from  the  scholastic  side 
as  were  the  hasty  and  ill-adjusted  theories  from  the 
other. 

There  were,  however,  in  those  times,  other  divines 
who  looked  the  facts  in  the  face  and  took  a  better  way. 
Thus  Witsius  ^  admits  four  interpolations,  after  care¬ 
fully  considering  the  objections  that  were  urged  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship,  and  is  followed  by  Dr.  Graves, § 
who  admits  six  additions  by  a  later  hand,  and  also  by 
Adam  Clarke, [  who,  in  general,  admits  additions  by 
Ezra.  Prideaux^f  represents  Ezra  as  editing  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  and  making  additions  in  a  number  of  places — 
illustrating,  connecting  and  completing  the  narratives.** 


*  “  In  Spiritus  s.  quinetiam  calamus  dirigentis  arbitrio  fuit,  verba  et  verborum 
ordinem  suggere,  prout  ipsi,  visuum  est.  Sicut  diversos  Scriptores  diversi  modo 
ita  inspiravit,  ut  diverso  stylo  uterentur:  ita  eundem  Script orem  quo  minus 
diversi  modo  inspiraret,  nihil  vetabat  equidem,”  p.  269. 

+  Nam  spiritus  prophetic  et  infallibilitatis  si  in  uno,  veluti  scriba,  revisore  pec- 
care,  abberrare  potest,  poterit  etiam  in  altero,  puta  in  Mose,”  p.  270. 

X  Misc.  Sacra ,  1692,  pp.  104,  130. 

§  Lectures  on  the  Four  Last  Books  of  the  Pentateuch ,  1807,  4th  Edit.,  1831, 
p.  439  sq. 

|  Holy  Bible ,  1810-26. 

H  Old  and  New  Testaments  connected,  1716-18,  Part  I.,  Book  V.  (3). 

**  “  The  third  thing  which  Ezra  did  about  the  holy  Scriptures  in  his  edition 
of  them  was,  that  he  added  in  several  places  throughout  the  books  of  this  edition 
what  appeared  necessary  for  the  illustrating,  connecting,  or  completing  of  them  ; 
wherein  he  was  assisted  by  the  same  Spirit  by  which  they  were  at  first  wrote. 
Of  this  sort  we  may  reckon  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  which,  giving  an 
account  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Moses,  and  of  the  succession  of  Joshua  after 
him,  it  could  not  be  written  by  Moses  himself,  who  undoubtedly  was  the  pen¬ 
man  of  the  rest  of  that  book.  It  seems  most  probable  that  it  was  added  by 


44 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Vitringa *  * * * §  gave  a  more  careful  consideration  to  the  facts, 
and  taught  that  Moses  collected,  digested,  and  embel¬ 
lished  the  documents  of  the  patriarchs  and  supplied 
their  deficiencies.  This,  he  argues,  does  not  destroy  the 
authority  of  the  book,  for  Moses  was  aided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  So  Luke  prepared  his  history  of  the  Gospel 
from  the  narratives  of  others  and  annotations  of  eye¬ 
witnesses,  and  these  are  of  no  less  authority  than  the 
narratives  of  Matthew  and  John.  The  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  given  to  them,  whether  they  composed  as 
eye-witnesses  or  digested  the  narratives  of  others.  This 
view  of  Vitringa  was  advocated  by  Calmet,f  Bishop 
Gleig4  and  others.  About  the  same  time  several  Ro¬ 
man  Catholic  divines  took  ground  independently  in  favor 
of  the  theory  of  the  use  of  written  documents  by  Moses 
in  the  composition  of  Genesis,  namely,  Abb6  Fleury,§ 
and  Abb£  Laurent  Fran90is.ll  Prideaux,  Calmet,  Vi¬ 
tringa  and  their  associates  represented  the  true  schol- 


Ezra  at  this  time.  And  such  we  may  also  reckon  the  several  interpolations 
which  occur  in  many  places  of  the  holy  Scriptures.”  He  refers  especially  to 
Gen.  xii.  6;  xiv.  14 ;  xxii.  14 ;  xxxvi.  3;  Ex.  xvi.  35  ;  Deut.  ii.  12  ;  iii.  n,  14  ; 
and  concludes  :  “  Of  which  interpolations  undoubtedly  Ezra  was  the  author,  in 
all  the  books  which  passed  his  examination,  and  Simon  the  Just  of  all  the  rest 
which  were  added  afterward,  for  they  all  seemed  to  refer  to  those  latter  times. 
But  these  additions  do  not  detract  anything  from  the  divine  authority  of  the 
whole,  because  they  were  all  inserted  by  the  direction  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit 
which  dictated  all  the  rest.” 

*  Observ.  Sacra ,  c.  IV.,  2,  1722. 

+  Com.  Litter  ale,  1722,  tom.  I.,  p.  xiii. 

X  Stackhouse’s  History  0/  the  Bible ,  corrected  and  improved,  1817,  Vol.  I., 
p.  xx. 

§  Moeurs  des  Israelites ,  p.  6,  Bruxelles,  1701.  This  was  translated  into  Eng¬ 
lish  and  enlarged  by  Adam  Clarke  ;  3d  edition,  1809. 

||  Preuves  de  la  Religio?i  de  Jesus  Christ ,  contra  les  Spinosistes  et  les 
Deistes ,  1751,  I.  2,  c.  3,  art.  7.  “  II  est  plus  que  vrai-semblable  que  dans  la 

lignee,  ou  s’est  conservee  la  connoissance  de  Dieu  on  conservit  aussi  par  ecrit, 
des  memoires  des  anciens  temps ;  car  les  hommes  n’  ont  jamais  ete  sans  ce 
soin.” 


THE  RISE  OF  CRITICISM 


45 


arly  position.  They  presented  a  reasonable  solution,  in 
view  of  the  facts  then  adduced.  They  laid  the  founda¬ 
tions  for  Evangelical  Criticism  in  the  great  revival  of 
Higher  Criticism,  which  was  about  to  begin  and  run  a 
long  and  successful  course.  We  shall  divide  the  history 
of  this  movement  of  Higher  Criticism  into  three  stadia : 
the  documentary,  supplementary,  and  development  hy¬ 
potheses. 


V. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS. 

Jean  Astruc,  a  Roman  Catholic  physician,  opened  a 
new  era  for  the  study  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  1753  he  made 
it  evident  that  Genesis  was  composed  of  several  docu¬ 
ments.  He  presented  to  the  learned  world,  with  some 
hesitation  and  timidity,  his  discovery  that  the  use  of 
the  divine  names  Elohim  and  Yahweh  divided  the  book 
of  Genesis  into  two  great  memoirs  and  nine  lesser  ones, 
as  follows  :  viL  20-23  ;  xiv.,  xix.  29-38  ;  xxii.  20-24  I 
xxv.  12-18;  xxvi.  34-35;  xxviii.  6-9;  xxxiv.,  xxxv. 
28-xxxvi.  The  advantages  of  this  discovery  are  ad¬ 
mirably  presented:  (1).  It  explains  the  singularity  of 
the  use  of  these  two  divine  names.  (2).  It  explains  the 
repetitions  of  the  same  subject  by  distributing  these 
among  the  memoirs.  (3).  It  excuses  Moses  from  neg¬ 
ligence  in  composition  by  the  supposition  that  he 
arranged  these  memoirs  in  four  different  columns,  as 
Origen  did  the  ancient  versions  in  his  Hexapla  and  as 
Harmonists  arrange  the  four  Gospels. 

This  was  a  real  discovery,  which,  after  a  hundred 
years  of  debate,  has  won  the  consent  of  the  vast  ma¬ 
jority  of  Biblical  scholars.  His  analysis  is  in  some 
respects  too  mechanical,  and,  in  not  a  few  instances,  is 
defective  and  needed  rectification,  but  as  a  whole  it  has 
(46) 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


47 


been  maintained.  He  relies  also  too  much  upon  the 
different  use  of  the  divine  names,  and  too  little  upon  va¬ 
riations  in  style,  language,  and  narrative.  Since  his  date 
his  line  of  argument  has  been  more  thoroughly  worked 
out.  Every  use  of  the  divine  names  throughout  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  has  been  carefully  examined  in  the  prep¬ 
aration  of  the  new  Hebrew  Lexicon,  edited  by  Dr.  Brown, 
with  the  co-operation  of  Canon  Driver  and  the  author, 
and  a  fresh  and  exhaustive  investigation  has  been  made 
of  the  whole  subject.  These  are  the  facts  :  In  Ex.  vi.  2-3 
it  is  written :  “And  Elohim  spake  unto  Moses,  and  said 
unto  him,  I  am  Yahweh  :  and  I  appeared  unto  Abraham, 
unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  as  ’ El  Shadday ,  but  by  my 
name  Yahweh  I  was  not  known  to  them.”  Turning  now 
to  Genesis  we  find  'El  Shadday  used  in  connection  with 
the  covenants  made  with  Abraham  and  Jacob;  but  we 
also  find  that  the  divine  name  Yahveh  is  placed  in  the 
mouth  of  the  antediluvians  and  patriarchs  from  Genesis, 
chap,  ii.,  onward.  Here  is  a  glaring  inconsistency  not 
invented  by  critics,  but  on  the  surface  of  Genesis  itself. 
The  discovery  of  Astruc,  that  this  inconsistency  is  due 
to  a  usage  of  different  documents,  removed  the  diffi¬ 
culty.  Criticism  has  found  that  the  priestly  writer  who 
wrote  Ex.  vi.  never  uses  the  divine  name  Yahweh  in 
his  document  prior  to  Ex.  vi.,  when  he  states  that  it 
was  revealed  to  Moses  for  the  first  time.  The  use  of 
the  divine  name  Yahweh  in  Genesis  is  in  the  Judaic 
document,  which  nowhere  mentions  or  seems  to  know 
anything  about  the  revelation  of  the  name  Yahweh  to 
Moses.  He  uses  it  as  the  name  of  God  from  the  begin¬ 
ning.  The  early  analysts  were  confronted  with  the  dif¬ 
ficulty  that  there  was  a  very  singular  and  apparently 
capricious  use  of  the  divine  name  left  in  the  Judaic  doc¬ 
ument  after  the  Elohistic  document  had  been  eliminated. 


48 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


This  led  to  a  more  thorough  study  of  that  document 
which  resulted  in  the  discovery  that  it  had  been  closely 
connected  with  another  document  which  uses  the  divine 
name  Elohim.  This  discovery  was  made  by  Ilgen  in 
1798  ;  *  but  the  discovery  was  ignored  until  a  much  later 
date  when  it  was  rediscovered  by  Hupfeld. 

Looking  now  at  Exodus  iii.,  we  observe  that  it  tells  of 
a  revelation  of  the.  divine  name  Yahweh  to  Moses,  at 
Horeb.  This  is  a  parallel  narrative  to  chapter  vi.,  and 
is  now  recognized  by  criticism  as  from  the  Ephraimitic 
author.  Thus  the  whole  difficulty  of  the  use  of  the 
divine  names  is  solved.  The  critics  did  not  make  the 
difficulty.  They  have  removed  the  difficulty  by  the 
science  of  criticism.  This  Ephraimitic  author  not  only 
uses  the  divine  name  Elohim,  but  it  is  his  style  to  use  it 
with  the  definite  article,  and  it  is  also  his  style  to  use  it 
by  preference,  even  after  the  divine  name  Yahweh  was 
revealed  ;  whereas  the  priestly  writer  seldom  uses  Elohim 
after  he  tells  of  the  revelation  of  Yahweh  to  Moses. f 

In  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  we  find  a  fourth  docu¬ 
ment  which  also  extends  through  Joshua,  and  appears 
occasionally  in  the  earlier  narratives.  It  is  the  style  of 
this  writer  to  use  the  terms  Yahweh  thy  God,  or  Yahweh 
your  God.  He  uses  Yahweh  thy  God  238  times.  This 
phrase  is  used  elsewhere  in  the  Hexateuch,  5  times  in 
the  Ten  Words ;  3  times  in  the  ancient  law  of  worship, 
in  the  covenant  codes  and  in  two  passages  Gen.  xxvii. 
20,  Ex.  xv.  26,  in  verses  which  present  other  reasons 
for  being  considered  editorial  seams. 

Other  peculiarities  in  the  use  of  divine  names  may  be 
mentioned  here.  Adonay ,  “  my  Lord,”  as  applied  to  God, 
is  used  in  J  13  times,  elsewhere  in  the  Hexateuch  only 


*Urku?iden  des  Jerusalemer  Tempel-archivs. 


f  See  Appendix  I. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


4fi 


in  Gen.  xx.  4 ;  (E  ?)  and  Ex.  xv.  17,  (Song  of  Red  Sea, 
where  the  Samaritan  codex  has  Yahweh).  Adonay  Yah- 
weh  is  used  only  in  Gen.  xv.  2,  8 ;  Jos.  vii.  7  (J)  and  Dt. 
iii.  24 ;  ix.  26  (D).  “  God  of  Abraham  ”  is  a  phrase  of 

J.  “  Israel’s  God  ”  is  a  phrase  of  E,  used  9  times.  It 
is  also  used  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  23  (covenant  code  of  J)  and 
Jos.  vii.  13,  19,  20,  where  JE  are  so  mixed  that  it  is  dif¬ 
ficult  to  disentangle  them,  and  by  R  in  Num.  xvi.  9  ;  Jos. 
ix.  18,  19,  xxii.  24  ;  x.  40,  42;  xiii.  14,  33.  “God  of 
the  Hebrews”  is  a  phrase  of  JE,  used  5  times.  “Other 
gods  ”  is  a  phrase  of  D,  used  in  the  Hexateuch  besides 
only  in  the  Ten  Words,  in  the  Deuteronomic  expression 
Ex.  xx.  3  =  Dt.  v.  7  ;  and  in  the  covenant  code  of  E,  Ex. 
xxiii.  18=  “other  God,”  of  the  covenant  code  of  J,  Ex. 
xxxiv.  14,  possibly  by  editorial  change  ;  and  Jos.  xxiv.  2, 
16  (E);  Dt.  xxxi.  18,  20  (JE).  Elohim  is  construed  with 
the  plural  verb  only  in  E,  Gen.  xx.  13,  xxxv.  7,  Jos. 
xxiv.  19. 

The  attention  of  German  scholars  was  called  to  this 
discovery  of  the  use  of  the  divine  names  by  Jerusalem. 
Eichhorn  was  independently  led  to  the  same  opinion. 
In  1780  he  published  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament. 

Eichhorn  combined  in  one  the  results  of  Simon  and 
Astruc,  embracing  the  various  elements  in  an  organic 
method  which  he  called  the  Higher  Criticism. 

In  the  preface  to  his  2d  edition,  1787,  he  says  : 

“  I  am  obliged  to  give  the  most  pains  to  a  hitherto  entirely 
unworked  field,  the  investigation  of  the  internal  condition  of 
the  particular  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  by  help  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  (a  new  name  to  no  Humanist).  Let  any  one 
think  what  they  will  of  these  efforts,  my  own  consciousness 
tells  me,  that  they  are  the  result  of  very  careful  investigation, 
although  no  one  can  be  less  wrapt  up  in  them  than  I  their  author. 


50 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


The  powers  of  one  man  hardly  suffice  to  complete  such  investi¬ 
gations  so  entirely  at  once.  They  demand  a  healthful  and  ever 
cheerful  spirit,  and  how  long  can  any  one  maintain  it  in  such 
toilsome  investigations  ?  They  demand  the  keenest  insight  into 
the  internal  condition  of  every  book  ;  and  who  will  not  be 
dulled  after  a  while  ?” 

Eichhorn  separated  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  docu¬ 
ments  in  Genesis  with  great  pains  and  wonderful  success, 
recognizing  besides  as  separate  documents  ii.  4— iii.  24 ; 
xiv.  ;  xxxiii.  18-xxxiv.  31;  xxxvi. ;  xlix.  1-27.  This 
analysis  of  Eichhorn  has  been  the  basis  of  all  critical  in¬ 
vestigation  since  his  day,  and  notwithstanding  the  sub¬ 
sequent  distinction  of  a  second  Elohist  and  Redactor, 
the  results  of  Eichhorn  have  been  maintained.* 

The  great  advantages  of  this  analysis  are  admirably 
stated  by  Eichhorn  (ii.,  p.  329) : 

“  For  this  discovery  of  the  internal  condition  of  the  first  books 
of  Moses,  party  spirit  will  perhaps  for  a  pair  of  decennials  snort 
at  the  Higher  Criticism  instead  of  rewarding  it  with  the  full 
thanks  that  are  due  it,  for  (1)  the  credibility  of  the  book  gains 
by  such  a  use  of  more  ancient  documents.  (2)  The  harmony  of 
the  two  narratives  at  the  same  t*me,  with  their  slight  deviations, 


*Thus  Prof.  Henry  P.  Smith,  in  his  article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review ,  iii., 
p.  375,  in  showing  the  present  consensus  of  the  critics,  says  :  “  If  we  find,  how¬ 

ever,  that  the  recognized  leaders,  though  far  apart  on  the  question  of  the  ‘  order 
of  production  ’  of  different  documents,  are  substantially  agreed  as  to  what  makes 
up  each  document,  we  ought  to  recognize  that  the  unanimity  here  is  so  much  the 
stronger  on  account  of  the  diversity  there.  An  examination  shows  that  in  the 
first  thirty  chapters  of  Genesis  the  following  passages  are  unanimously  accepted 
by  Hupfeld,  Noldeke,  Dillmann,  Wellhausen,  and  Kayser,  as  making  up  one  of 
the  documents  called  by  Dillmann  A  ;  by  Wellhausen  Q  ;  to  wit  :  i.  i — ii.  3  ;  v. 
1-28,  30-32 ;  vi.  9-22;  viii.  1-4,  13-19;  ix.  1-17,  28,  29 ;  xi.  10-26,  32  ;  xii.  4,  5  ; 
xiii.  6,  11,  T2 ;  xvi.  3,  15,  16  ;  xvii.  1-27  ;  xix.  29  ;  xxi.  2-5  ;  xxiii.  1-20  ;  xxv.  7- 
11,  17,  20,  26  ;  xxvi.  34,  35  ;  xxviii.  1-9  (I  have  disregarded  fractions  of  a  verse).” 
Now  it  shows  the  keenness  and  accuracy  of  Eichhorn  as  well  as  the  invincible 
strength  of  the  evidence  that  in  his  first  effort,  his  Elohist  embraces  all  of  the 
passages  given  above  except  the  detached  verses,  xii.  4,  5  ;  xiii.  6,  11,  12  ;  xvi. 
3,  13,  16  ;  xxv.  26. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


51 


proves  their  independence  and  mutual  reliability.  (3)  Interpre¬ 
ters  will  be  relieved  of  difficulty  by  this  Higher  Criticism  which 
separates  document  from  document.  (4)  Finally  the  gain  of 
Criticism  is  also  great.  If  the  Higher  Criticism  has  now  for  the 
first  distinguished  author  from  author,  and  in  general  charac¬ 
terized  each  according  to  his  own  ways,  diction,  favorite  expres¬ 
sions,  and  other  peculiarities,  then  her  lower  sister  who  busies 
herself  only  with  words,  and  spies  out  false  readings,  has  rules 
and  principles  by  which  she  must  test  particular  readings.”  * 

Eichhorn  regarded  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers 
as  having  grown  from  the  collection  of  particular  writ¬ 
ings  which  the  redactor  connected  by  historical  narra¬ 
tives :  Exodus  and  Leviticus  composed  at  Mt.  Sinai; 
Numbers  in  the  land  of  Moab.  He  thought  that  Moses 
was  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  except  the  last  chap¬ 
ter.  Deuteronomy  is  characterized  as  the  law  book  for 
the  people,  and  the  legislation  of  the  other  books  as  the 
priests’  code.  He  remarks  that  the  Pentateuch  only 
claims  Moses  as  the  author  of  particular  sections,  and 
that  the  middle  books  are  not  cited  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  under  the  name  of  Moses.  He  explains  it  from 
the  fact  that  they  constituted  the  priests’  code  over 
against  Deuteronomy,  the  people’s  book.  This  import¬ 
ant  distinction  of  Eichhorn  was  also  a  valuable  discovery 
for  Higher  Criticism.  Long  neglected,  it  has  in  recent 
times  again  come  into  play,  as  we  shall  see  further  on. 
Eichhorn  also  admits  many  glosses  by  a  late  hand,  but 
in  general  abides  by  the  authorship  in  the  Mosaic  period, 
and  chiefly  by  Moses  himself. 

*  See  also  Urgeschichte  in  the  Repertorium,  1779,  v.,  p.  187. 

We  cannot  help  calling  attention  to  the  fine  literary  sense  of  Eichhorn,  as 
manifest  in  the  following  extract  :  “  Read  it  (Genesis)  as  two  historical  works 

of  antiquity,  and  breathe  thereby  the  atmosphere  of  its  age  and  country.  Forget 
then  the  century  in  which  thou  livest  and  the  knowledge  it  affords  thee  ;  and  if 
thou  canst  not  do  this,  dream  not  that  thou  wilt  be  able  to  enjoy  the  book  in  the 
spirit  of  its  origin.” 


52 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Eichhorn  carried  his  methods  of  Higher  Criticism  into 
the  entire  Old  Testament  with  the  hand  of  a  master,  and 
laid  the  foundation  of  views  which  have  been  maintained 
ever  since  with  increasing  determination.  But  we  do 
not  find  that  in  all  cases  he  grasped  the  truth.  He  some¬ 
times  chased  shadows,  and  framed,  in  some  cases,  vision¬ 
ary  theories  in  relation  to  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments,  like  others  who  have  preceded  him  and  fol¬ 
lowed  him.  He  could  not  transcend  the  limits  of  his  age, 
and  adapt  himself  to  future  discoveries.  The  labors  of 
a  large  number  of  scholars,  and  the  work  of  a  century 
and  more  were  still  needed,  as  Eichhorn  modestly  an¬ 
ticipated. 

Eichhorn’s  Higher  Criticism  swept  the  field  in  Ger¬ 
many  in  his  day,  meeting  but  feeble  opposition.  Even  J. 
D.  Michaelis,  one  of  the  chief  scholars  of  Germany,  “  the 
pillar  of  supernaturalism/’  who  sought  to  modify  some 
of  the  positions  of  Eichhorn,* * * §  although  he  was  willing 
to  accept  the  analysis  of  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  with  cer¬ 
tain  modifications^  met  with  little  favor.  He  died, 
leaving  his  work  incomplete.^  As  J.  G.  Gabler,  the 
father  of  Biblical  Theology,  says :  §  The  analysis  of  the 
two  documents  by  Astruc,  Jerusalem,  and  especially  by 
Eichhorn,  is  so  masterly,  and  the  combination  of  the 
various  documents  in  one  by  Moses  has  been  made  so 


*  Einlcit.  in  d.  gottlichen  Schriften  d.  Alt.  Bundes ,  1787. 

f  P.  267. 

X  Michaelis  denies  that  Ex.  i.-ii.  can  belong  to  the  Elohist.  “  I  suppose  that 
what  Moses  wrote  of  himself  he  took  from  no  books  ”  (p.  269)  ;  and  claims  that 
Genesis  i.,  the  account  of  the  Creation,  must  have  been  given  to  Moses  by  inspi¬ 
ration  directly  from  God  (p.  269).  He  objects  to  the  artificial  analysis  of  Astruc, 
but  claims  that  when  dy6n  and  miT  are  used  throughout  entire  chapters,  a 
difference  of  style  is  evident  (p.  277).  He  recognizes  that  Moses  must  have  used 
written  as  well  as  traditional  and  monumental  sources. 

§  In  his  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  Eichhorn’s  Urgeschichtey  1790. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


53 


evident  that,  “  in  our  day  it  can  be  regarded  as  settled 
and  presupposed  without  fear  of  any  important  opposi¬ 
tion.” 

G.  L.  Bauer,  in  1794,*  followed  Eichhorn  in  his  anal¬ 
ysis,  but  held  that  the  Pentateuch  was  composed  in  the 
time  of  David. f  Rosenmiiller  J  also  followed  Eichhorn, 
but  subsequently  §  changed  his  view,  influenced  chiefly 
by  J.  G.  HasseJ  and  the  overdoing  of  the  analysis  by 
Ilgen.  Jahn^f  also  followed  Eichhorn  in  part.  Fulda** 
distinguishes  between  law  codes,  and  Pentateuch,  and 
puts  the  codes  first,  in  the  time  of  David,  the  present 
Pentateuch  in  the  Restoration.  Ottmar  (Nachtigal),ff 
makes  Jeremiah  the  last  collector  and  arranger  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

These  discussions  produced  little  impression  upon 
Great  Britain.  The  conflict  with  Deism  had  forced  the 
majority  of  her  divines  into  a  false  position.  If  they  had 
maintained  the  internal  divine  evidence  for  the  authority 
of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  evangelical  critical  position  of 
the  Reformers  and  Westminster  divines,  they  would  not 
have  hesitated  to  look  the  facts  in  the  face,  and  strive  to 
account  for  them  ;  they  would  not  have  committed  the 
grave  mistakes  by  which  Biblical  learning  was  almost 
paralyzed  in  Great  Britain  for  half  a  century.  Eager  for 
the  defence  of  traditional  views,  they,  for  the  most  part, 
fell  back  again  on  Jewish  Rabbinical  tradition  and  ex¬ 
ternal  evidence,  contending  with  painful  anxiety  for 
authors  and  dates,  and  so  antagonized  Higher  Criticism 
itself  as  Deistic  Criticism  and  Rationalistic  Criticism, 

*  Entwurf  einer  Einleit.,  3d  Edit.  Entwit'f  ein.  hist.-krit.  Einleit 1806. 

+  P.  328.  \  Scholia ,  1795,  i.,  pp.  7-12.  §  In  Edition  iii. ,  1821. 

|j  Entdeckungcn  im  Felde  der  dltesten  Er  d-u  .-Menschengeschichte . 

*[[  Int.  ad  Vet.  Foed.  1793,  pp.  209-224.  **  Paulus,  Repert.  iii.,  p.  180. 

ft  Uber  d.  allmahlige  Bildung ,  etc.,  in  Henke’s  Magazin ,  ii.,  433,  iv.  1-36 
(P-  30). 


54 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


not  discriminating  between  those  who  were  attacking 
the  Scriptures  in  order  to  destroy  them,  and  those  who 
were  searching  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to  defend  them. 
Mozley  says:  *  “  There  was  hardly  such  a  thing  as  Bibli¬ 
cal  Criticism  in  this  country  (Great  Britain)  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  this  century.  Poole’s  Synopsis  contained  all 
that  an  ordinary  clergyman  could  wish  to  know.  Arnold 
is  described  as  in  all  his  glory  at  Rugby,  with  Poole’s 
Synopsis  on  one  side  and  Facciolati  on  the  other.” 

Thus  Bishop  Marsh,  in  1792,  in  a  brief  address  at 
Cambridge, f  takes  the  position  : 

44  The  Pentateuch  contains  a  system  of  ceremonial  and  moral 
laws  which,  unless  we  reject  the  authority  of  all  history,  were 
observed  by  the  Israelites  from  the  time  of  their  departure  out 
of  Egypt  till  their  dispersion  at  the  taking  of  Jerusalem.  These 
laws,  therefore,  are  as  ancient  as  the  conquest  of  Palestine.  It  is 
also  an  undeniable  historical  fact  that  the  Jews  in  every  age 
believed  their  ancestors  had  received  them  from  the  hands  of 
Moses,  and  that  these  laws  were  the  basis  of  their  political  and 
religious  institutions  as  long  as  they  continued  to  be  a  people. 
We  are  therefore  reduced  to  this  dilemma,  to  acknowledge  either 
that  these  laws  were  actually  delivered  by  Moses,  or  that  a  whole 
nation,  during  fifteen  hundred  years,  groaned  under  the  weight 
of  an  imposture,  without  once  detecting  or  even  suspecting  the 
fraud  ”  (p.  7). 

This  statement  is,  in  part,  quoted  and  approved  by 
Horne  in  his  Introduction.^  But  it  is  a  weak  position  ; 
indeed,  the  chief  fault  of  the  traditional  theory,  as  we 
shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  show.  The  evidence  from 
the  Scriptures  is  all  to  the  effect  that  these  laws  were  ?iot 
observed,  and  any  argument  for  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  that  rests  upon  their  observance  “  from  the 


*  Reminiscences ,  1882,  American  edit,  ii.,  p.  41. 
t  The  Authenticity  of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses ,  4U),  p.  16. 
%  Vol.  ii.  19,  1st  edit.  1818. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


55 


time  of  the  departure  out  of  Egypt  till  their  disperse- 
ment,”  is  an  insecure  argument.  Bishop  Marsh  acknowl¬ 
edges  a  few  alterations  in  the  Pentateuch,  “  a  circum¬ 
stance  at  which  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised,  when  we 
reflect  on  the  many  thousands  of  transcripts  that  have 
been  made  from  it  in  the  course  of  three  thousand 
years.”* * * §  Faber f  says  :  “  At  any  one  epoch  during  the 
whole  existence  of  the  Hebrew  Polity,  it  would  have 
been  just  as  impossible  to  introduce  a  new  and  spurious 
Pentateuch,  as  it  would  be  now  impossible  to  introduce 
a  new  and  spurious  Bible.  In  each  case  the  reason  is 
the  very  same,  the  general  publicity  of  the  book."  J  “  The 
general  publicity”  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the  conquest 
to  the  exile  is  opposed  by  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  T.  Hartwell  Horne,  in  1 8 1 8, 
issued  his  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  Holy  Scriptures ,  which  passed  through  many 
editions, §  and  has  been  highly  esteemed  for  its  many 
excellent  qualities  by  several  generations  of  students. 
Horne’s  statement  in  the  Preface  to  the  second  edition 
of  his  work  shows  how  far  Great  Britain  was  behind  the 
continent  at  that  time.  He  says  : 

“  It  (the  work)  originated  in  the  author’s  own  wants  many 
years  since,  ....  when  he  stood  in  need  of  a  guide  in  reading 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures . At  this  time  the  author  had  no 

friend  to  assist  his  studies, — or  remove  his  doubts, — nor  any 
means  of  procuring  critical  works.  At  length  a  list  of  the  more 
eminent  foreign  Biblical  critics  fell  into  his  hands,  and  directed 
him  to  some  of  the  sources  of  information  which  he  was  seek¬ 
ing.  He  then  resolved  to  procure  such  of  them  as  his  humble 
means  would  permit,  with  the  design  in  the  first  instance  of  sat- 


*  Page  16.  f  Horcz  Mosaic <z,  1801,  2d  edit.,  1818. 

t  An  unknown  reader  of  the  copy  we  have  examined,  writes  on  the  margin  : 

“  ?  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14.” 

§  4th,  823  ;  10th,  1856. 


56 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


isfying  his  own  mind  on  those  topics  which  had  perplexed  him, 
and  ultimately  of  laying  before  the  public  the  results  of  his  in¬ 
quiries,  should  no  treatise  appear  that  might  supersede  such  a 
publication.” 

It  is  evident  from  Horne’s  work  that  he  wrote  it  be¬ 
fore  he  had  fully  read  the  literature  of  his  subject,  and 
before  he  had  mastered  its  principles  and  its  details. 
Horne  passes  lightly  over  the  views  of  Eichhorn,  simply 
remarking : 

“  On  the  Continent  the  hypothesis  of  Calmet  was  adopted  by 
M.  Astruc,  who  fancied  that  he  discovered  traces  of  twelve 
different  ancient  documents  from  which  the  earlier  chapters  of 
Exodus  as  well  as  the  entire  book  of  Genesis  are  compiled. 
These,  however,  were  reduced  by  Eichhorn  to  two  in  number, 
which  he  affirms  may  be  distinguished  by  the  appellations  of 
Elohim  and  Jehovah,  given  to  the  Almighty.  The  hypothesis  of 
Eichhorn  is  adopted  by  Rosenmuller  (from  whom  it  was  bor¬ 
rowed  by  the  late  Dr.  Geddes),  and  is  partially  acceded  to  by 
Jahn.  To  this  hypothesis  there  is  but  one  objection,  and  we 
apprehend  that  it  is  a  fatal  one,  namely,  the  total  silence  of  Moses 

as  to  any  documents  consulted  by  him . Should  the  reader, 

however,  be  disposed  to  adopt  the  hypothesis  of  Calmet  without 
the  refinements  of  Eichhorn  and  his  followers,  this  will  not,  in 
the"  smallest  degree,  detract  from  the  divine  authority  of  the 
book  of  Genesis.”  (vol.  ii.,  p.  31,  first  edition.) 

He  also  makes  the  following  argument : 

“  Moreover,  that  the  Pentateuch  was  extant  in  the  time  of 
David,  is  evident  from  the  very  numerous  allusions  made  in  his 
psalms  to  its  contents ;  but  it  could  not  have  been  drawn  up  by 
him,  since  the  law  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  forbids  many 
practices  of  which  David  was  guilty.”  (4th  edit.,  vol.  i.,  p.  54.) 

Little  did  he  anticipate  how  soon  the  arguments  from 
silence  and  from  violation  of  law  upon  which  he  relies, 
would  be  turned  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  prove  so  difficult  to  answer.  Little  did 
he  and  Bishop  Marsh  imagine  that  their  main  argument, 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


57 


“  the  observance  of  the  law  from  the  conquest  till  the  exile  f 
would  prove  the  special  weakness  of  the  traditional 
theory. 

Horne  refers  above  to  the  Roman  Catholic  divine,  Dr. 
Alex.  Geddes,  as  holding  the  view  of  Eichhorn  ;  but  in 
fact  Geddes  differs  radically  from  Eichhorn  and  his  school, 
and  is  the  real  father  of  a  variant  theory  of  the  compo¬ 
sition  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  has  been  called  the  frag¬ 
mentary  hypothesis.  Thus  Dr.  Geddes  says  :  * 

“  It  has  been  well  observed  by  Michaelis  that  all  external  tes¬ 
timony  here  is  of  little  avail ;  it  is  from  intrinsic  evidence  only 
that  we  must  derive  our  proofs.  Now,  from  intrinsic  evidence, 
three  things,  to  me,  seem  indubitable  :  (i)  The  Pentateuch  in  its 
present  form  was  not  written  by  Moses.  (2)  It  was  written  in 
the  land  of  Chanaan,  and  most  probably  at  Jerusalem.  (3)  It 
could  not  be  written  before  the  reign  of  David,  nor  after  that  of 
Hezekiah.  The  long  pacific  reign  of  Solomon  (the  Augustan 
age  of  Judea)  is  the  period  to  which  I  would  refer  it ;  yet  I  con¬ 
fess  there  are  some  marks  of  a  posterior  date,  or  at  least  of 
posterior  interpolation.  But  although  I  am  inclined  to  believe 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  reduced  into  its  present  form  in  the 
reign  of  Solomon,  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  it  was  compiled 
from  ancient  documents,  some  of  which  were  coeval  with  Moses, 
and  some  even  anterior  to  Moses.  Whether  all  these  were  writ¬ 
ten  records  or  many  of  them  only  oral  traditions,  it  would  be 
rash  to  determine.”  Also  p.  xxi. :  “  To  the  Pentateuch  I  have 
joined  the  book  of  Joshua,  both  because  I  conceive  it  to  have 
been  compiled  by  the  same  author,  and  because  it  is  a  necessary 
appendix  to  the  history  contained  in  the  former  books.” 

The  fragmentary  hypothesis  of  Geddes  was  introduced 
into  Germany  by  Vater.f  Vater’s  view  is  that  the  Pen- 


*  The  Holy  Bible  ;  ory  The  Books  Accounted  Sacred  by  yews  and  Chris- 
tians,  etc.,  faithfully  translated ,  etc.  London,  1792,  vol.  i.,  p.  xviii. 

f  Commentar  iiber  den  Pentateuch  mit  Einleitungen  zu  den  einzelnen 
Abschnitten ,  der  eingeschalteten  Ubersetzung  von  Dr.  Alexander  Geddes's 
.  tnerkwilrdigeren  kritischen  und  exegetischen  Anmerkungen,  etc.  Halle,  1805. 


58 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


tateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  are  composed  of  a  great 
number  of  separate  fragments  of  different  authors, 
loosely  joined  by  a  collector.*  He  puts  the  greater  part 
of  Deuteronomy  at  least  as  early  as  the  Davidic  age,  but 
the  composition  of  our  Pentateuch  toward  the  time  of 
the  exile,  f  Calling  attention  to  the  discrepancies  in  the 
codes  of  legislation  and  the  non-observance  of  them  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  he  makes  the  important  statement: 

“  Still  in  later  times  we  find  the  most  important  laws  of  the 
Mosaic  constitution  either  unknown  or  at  least  unobserved,  so 
that  the  conclusion  may  be  drawn  therefrom  that  either  the 
Pentateuch  was  not  there,  or  at  least  not  yet  in  its  present  ex¬ 
tent  the  book  of  religion  that  was  regarded  as  generally  obliga¬ 
tory,  which  it  must  have  been  if  it  had  been  esteemed  as  such 
from  the  times  of  Moses.”  III.,  p.  652. 

Vater  takes  the  first  alternative  of  the  non-existence 
of  the  books.  His  other  alternative  was  not  sufficiently 
considered  by  himself  or  by  others.  The  fragmentary 
hypothesis  was  also  advocated  by  A.  T.  Hartmann,;): 
Von  Bohlen,§  and  others.  It  was  a  radical  and  destruc¬ 
tive  theory,  that  called  forth  the  determined  opposition 
of  all  earnest  men,  and  it  was  soon  overthrown. 

Comparing  this  fragmentary  hypothesis  of  Geddes  and 
others  with  the  documentary  hypothesis  of  Eichhorn’s 
school  and  the  Rabbinical  view  as  advocated  by  Marsh 
and  Horne,  we  remark  that  the  documentary  hypothesis 
of  the  school  of  Eichhorn,  notwithstanding  serious  de¬ 
fects,  is  in  the  midst  of  two  extremes.  It  gave  the  best 
solution  of  the  facts  that  had  been  discovered  in  those 
times.  The  documentary  hypothesis  found  representa- 


*  hi.,  p.  504. 

X  Historisch-krit.  Forschungen ,  1831. 

§  Die  Genesis  historisch-krit .  erldutert ,  1835. 


t  III.,  p.  680. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


59 


tion  in  Great  Britain  and  America  in  Taylor’s  edition  of 
Calmet’s  Dictionary  of  the  Holy  Bible,*  and  in  the 
American  edition  by  Edward  Robinson  in  1835.  Tay¬ 
lor’s  statement,  as  revised  by  Robinson,  is  the  following  : 

“  It  may  be  admitted,  for  instance,  (1)  that  the  Book  of  Gene¬ 
sis  contains  various  repetitions  or  double  narratives  of  the  same 
early  events  ;  (2)  that  these  duplicate  narratives, when  closely  com¬ 
pared,  present  characteristic  differences  of  style  ;  (3)  that  these 
differences  are  too  considerable  and  too  distinct  to  admit  of  any 
other  explanation  than  that  of  different  originals,  taken  into 
association.” 


*  Edition  of  1832. 


VI. 

\ 

THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS. 

THIS  stadium  is  characterized  by  the  effort  to  deter¬ 
mine  the  genesis  of  the  various  documents  constituting 
the  Pentateuch.  De  Wette  is  the  man  who  chiefly  influ¬ 
ences  the  discussion.* 

Reviewing  the  previous  stadium  Merx  properly  re¬ 
marks  that  both  the  fragmentary  and  documentary 
hypotheses 

— “  have  this  in  common  that  they  seek  to  attain  their  aim 
chiefly  by  the  way  of  Literary  Criticism,  and  neglect  or  use  only 
as  a  subsidiary  help,  the  realistic,  antiquarian  and  historical  crit¬ 
icism  of  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  element  De 
Wette  chiefly  brought  into  the  scientific  investigation  in  his 
Kritik  der  israelitischen  Geschichte ,  Halle,  1807.” — P.  lxxxii.  of  2d 
Aufl.  of  Tuch’s  Coin,  fiber  Genesis ,  Halle,  1871. 

At  first  hovering  between  the  documentary  hypothe¬ 
sis  of  Eichhorn  and  the  fragmentary  hypothesis  of 
Geddes,  recognizing  the  features  of  truth  and  of  error 
in  them  both,  De  Wette  at  last  rises  above  them  and 
presses  for  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 


*  For  an  excellent  account  of  the  criticism  of  this  stadium  see  the  valuable 
articles  of  Prof.  F.  A.  Gast,  D.D.,  on  Pentateuch  Criticism,  in  the  April  and 
July  Numbers  of  the  Refoi-med  Quarterly  Review ,  1882 ;  also  Nachwort ,  by 
Merx  in  2d  Aufl.  of  Tuch’s  Genesis,  1871,  p.  lxxviii.  sq.,  etc. 

(60) 


\ 


THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


61 


form  as  the  plan  of  one  mind.  He  first  stated  that  Deu¬ 
teronomy  is  an  independent  part  of  the  Pentateuch, 
composed  in  the  age  of  Josiah.* * * §  He  subsequently 
adopted  into  his  system  the  improvements  suggested  by 
other  Biblical  scholars  who  followed  in  his  footsteps.f 
In  1824  Bleek;):  adopted  the  view  of  Geddes  and  Vater, 
that  the  death  of  Moses  was  not  the  proper  close  of  the 
history  begun  in  Genesis,  but  that  it  aimed  at  the  occu¬ 
pation  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  that  the  Book  of  Joshua 
therefore  belonged  with  the  Pentateuch,  so  that  these 
should  rather  be  considered  as  a  Hexateuch.  Bleek  was 
the  first  to  give  shape  to  what  has  been  called  the  supple¬ 
mentary  hypothesis.  He  made  the  Elohist  original  and 
fundamental,  the  Jahvist  the  supplementer.  Bleek  also 
advanced  in  his  position  by  subsequent  investigations  of 
himself  and  others.  His  final  statement  is  presented  in 
his  posthumous  Lectures  on  Introduction,  i86o.§ 

In  1823  Ewald  ||  also  insisted  upon  the  unity  of  Gene¬ 
sis  over  against  the  fragmentary  hypothesis,  and  in 
1831,1"  showed  that  the  Elohistic  and  Jahvistic  docu¬ 
ments  extended  through  the  entire  Pentateuch.  Soon 
after,  the  same  was  found  to  be  the  case  with  Joshua, 
and  the  unity  of  the  Hexateuch  in  the  midst  of  the 
diversity  of  documents  was  made  manifest. 

Over  against  these  critical  investigations  the  tradi¬ 
tional  theory  was  advocated  by  Ranke,**  who  sharply 
and  successfully  attacked  the  fragmentary  hypothesis, 


*  1805,  Dissert,  zur  Deut.  ;  1806-7,  Beitr.  zur  Einleit. ;  1817,  Lehrb.  d.  hist.- 
krit .  Einleitung.  2d  edition,  trans.  by  Theo.  Parker,  Boston,  1843. 

f  6th  Aufl.  Einleit.  1844.  7th,  1852. 

J  Rosenm.,  Bib.  Exeget.  Repert.  I. 

§  The  2d  edition  was  translated  into  English  by  G.  H.  Venables,  1865. 

||  Composition  der  Genesis ,  1823. 

Stud,  und  Krit.  in  a  review  of  Stahelin  on  Genesis,  602  sq. 

**  U n  ter  such  u  n gen ,  1834-40. 


62 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


but  did  not  squarely  meet  the  position  of  the  school  of 
De  Wette.  Hengstenberg  * * * §  made  war  upon  the  dis¬ 
tinction  of  documents  and  sought  to  efface  the  differ¬ 
ences  by  his  theory  of  an  intentional  change  of  the 
divine  names  in  accordance  with  their  essential  meaning 
and  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Kurtz  also  f  took  a 
similar  position,  which,  however,  he  subsequently  aban¬ 
doned.^;  Drechsler  §  also  sharply  attacked  the  methods 
of  the  Higher  Criticism.  But  the  ablest  work  on  the 
scholastic  side  was  produced  by  Havernick.J  Havernick 
sturdily  maintained  the  Rabbinical  view  after  Carpzov 
and  Heidegger,  and  declined  to  make  concessions  as  to 
variety  of  documents  in  the  Pentateuch.  This  revival 
of  traditional  views  was  very  strong,  and  powerful  efforts 
were  put  forth  to  overcome  the  advancing  critics,  but  in 
vain,  for  it  died  away  essentially  with  these  distin¬ 
guished  champions.  Kurtz  soon  went  over  to  an  inter¬ 
mediate  position.  Keil,  in  1854,  took  up  the  work  of 
Havernick,  but  without  any  appreciable  effect  upon  the 
discussion  so  far  as  Germany  is  concerned.  In  1866  it 
was  the  author’s  privilege  to  study  with  Hengsten- 
berg  in  the  University  of  Berlin.  His  studies  were  at 
first  chiefly  on  the  traditional  side.  He  can  say  that  he 
worked  over  the  chief  authorities  on  that  side,  and  they 
had  all  the  advantages  of  his  predilections  in  their 
favor.  But  Hengstenberg  himself  convinced  him  in  his 
own  lecture-room  that  hewas  defending  a  lost  cause.  He 
then  turned  away  from  the  study  of  the  Pentateuch  and 


*  Beit  rage  zur  Einleitung  ins  Alte  Testament :  Bd.  ii.-iii. ,  Die  Authentie 
des  Pentaleuchs ,  1836-39. 

t  Beitrdge ,  1844,  and  Einheit  der  Genesis,  1846. 

X  Gesc/i.  d.  Alt.  Bundes ,  1848,  ^d  Ed.  1864. 

§  Unwissenschaft.  d.  Kritik,  1837. 

11  Hist.-krit.  Einleit .,  1836.  (2te  Aufl.  by  Keil,  1854). 


THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


63 


the  Historical  books  and  devoted  himself  to  the  study  of 
the  Poetical  and  Prophetical  books,  under  the  guidance 
of  Roediger,  and  it  was  not  until  his  fourth  year  in  Ger¬ 
many  that  he  returned  to  the  study  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  then  worked  under  the  guidance  chiefly  of  Ewald. 
His  experience  corresponds  with  that  of  many  other  stu¬ 
dents  of  his  time.  We  yielded  against  our  wishes  to  in¬ 
superable  arguments,  and  when  compelled  to  adopt  the 
analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  reserved  our  decision  on  the 
date  of  the  documents  until  these  could  be  definitely 
determined.  Hengstenberg  was  the  last  great  champion 
of  traditionalism  in  the  Old  Testament.  His  successor, 
August  Dillmann,  a  pupil  of  Ewald,  has  been  the  most 
painstaking  critic  of  our  times.  Plermann  Strack  said  in 
1 882  :* * * §  “  Keil  is  now  about  the  only  prominent  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  scholar  who  holds  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
entire  Pentateuch.”  Keil  died  soon  afterwards,  and 
with  him  scholarly  opposition  ceased  in  Germany. 

A  more  careful  analysis  of  Genesis  was  undertaken 
by  Tuch,f  a-nd  this  was  extended  by  Stahelin  to  the 
entire  Pentateuch.^  Hupfeld  §  took  up  the  analysis 
of  Genesis,  and,  unaware  of  the  work  of  Ilgen,  came 
independently  to  essentially  the  same  results,  only  that 
in  his  exceedingly  careful  discrimination  of  the  various 
documents  he  made  it  clear  that  there  were  Elohist,  2d 
Elohist,  Jahvist,  and  Redactor;  the  Redactor,  differing 
from  the  other  three,  in  that  he  is  distinguished  for  the 
conscientiousness  with  which  he  reproduces  the  ancient 
documents,  word  for  word,  and  the  skill  with  which  he 
combines  them  in  the  unity  and  order  which  characterize 

*  Handb.  d.  Theol.  Wissensck.,  1882,  I.  f  Comm.  u.  d.  Genesis ,  1838. 

X  Krit.  Unters.  in  Genesis ,  1830.  Krit.  Unters..  1843.  Specielle  Einleit. , 

1862. 

§  Quellen  d.  Genesis ,  1853. 


64 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


his  work.  This  was  a  very  great  gain.  Knobel  * * * §  ana¬ 
lyzed  the  Hexateuch  and  made  the  Elohist  the  funda¬ 
mental  writing,  and  found  two  other  documents  used 
by  the  Jahvistic  supplementer,  and  combined  with  it. 
Ewald  f  gave  a  new  turn  to  the  question  by  taking 
the  Elohistic  document  as  the  Book  of  Origins.  This 
gathered  into  itself  three  older  writings  in  part :  the 
book  of  the  wars  of  Yahweh,  a  biography  of  Moses, 
and  the  book  of  the  Covenants,  having  the  design  to 
trace  the  history  from  the  creation  of  the  world  until 
the  erection  of  the  temple  of  Solomon.  It  was  com¬ 
posed  in  the  first  third  of  the  reign  of  Solomon.  The 
second  Elohist  is  the  third  narrator,  in  the  age  of  Elijah 
and  Joel.  The  Jahvist  is  the  fourth  narrator,  in  the 
eighth  century.  The  Redactor  is  the  fifth  narrator, 
who  worked  up  the  entire  Hexateuch  except  Lev. 
xxvi.  3-45,  Deut.  i.  I — xxii.  47,  xxxiv.  11-12,  and 
xxxiii.,  which  were  three  separate  writings  subsequently 
united  with  it.  The  Deuteronomist  wrote  his  work  in 
the  second  half  of  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  The  last 
work  upon  the  Pentateuch  was  done  by  the  author  of 
Deut.  xxxiii.  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Thus  our  Pentateuch,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  gradu¬ 
ally  grew  into  its  present  form.J 

It  became  more  and  more  evident  that  the  problem 
was  to  determine  the  work  of  the  Redactor.  E. 
Bohmer§  followed  Hupfeld  and  sought  to  define  more 

*  Comm.  Gen.,  1852,  (2 te  Aufl.,  i860).  Exod.  und  Levit .,  1857.  Krit.  des 
Pent,  und  Josh.,  1861. 

+  Gesch.  des  Volkes  Israel ,  1843-52.  2  Bde.  3te  Ausg.  7  Bde.,  1864-68,  Bd.  I., 
p.  94/. 

X  We  cannot  pause  to  give  the  reasons  of  Ewald  for  his  positions  or  to  criticise 
them.  We  may  remark  that  his  positions  are  carefully  taken  and  justified  by 
plausible  evidences.  We  will  consider  the  most  important  of  them  in  our 
criticism  of  the  theories  of  this  stadium  as  a  whole. 

§  Liber  Genesis  Pent.,  i860,  Das  erste  Buck  d.  Torah,  1862. 


THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


65 


exactly  the  Redactor’s  part.  Noldeke  *  examined  the 
Elohist  with  the  utmost  exactness,  and  represented  it  as 
a  systematic  work  by  itself,  to  a  very  large  extent  pre¬ 
served  in  the  Pentateuch.  He  held  that  it  was  written 
by  a  priest  at  Jerusalem  in  the  ninth  or  tenth  century 
B.C.  Other  materials  were  used  by  the  Jehovist,  es¬ 
pecially  the  work  of  the  second  Elohist,  from  about  the 
same  time  as  the  first  Elohist.  The  Redactor,  about 
800  B.C.,  united  the  two  together.  In  the  reign  of 
Josiah,  the  Deuteronomist  added  his  book  and  worked 
over  Joshua  and  gave  the  Pentateuch  its  present  form. 

Schrader  f  introduced  the  more  recent  investigations 
into  the  scheme  of  De  Wette,  and  combined  the  docu¬ 
mentary  and  supplementary  hypotheses  as  follows : 
There  are  two  chief  documents  :  the  Annalistic  (Elohist) 
and  Theocratic  (2d  Elohist),  composed,  the  former  in 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  reign  of  David,  the  author  a 
priest  who  used  earlier  written  sources ;  the  latter  soon 
after  the  division  of  the  kingdom  in  the  northern  realm, 
975-95°  B.C.,  also  using  ancient  documents.  The  third 
prophetic  narrator  (Jehovist)  combined  the  two,  freely 
appropriating,  and  rejecting,  and  enlarging  by  numerous 
additions,  making  a  complete  and  harmonious  work,  in 
the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.,  825-800  B.C.,  in  the  northern 
kingdom.  The  Deuteronomist  in  the  prophetic  spirit 
composed  the  law  of  Moses  contained  in  Deuteron¬ 
omy,  and  became  the  final  redactor  of  the  Pentateuch 
in  its  present  form,  immediately  before  the  reform  of 
Josiah,  622  B.C.,  being  a  man  closely  associated  with 
the  prophet  Jeremiah.  Schrader  briefly  and  clearly 
sums  up  the  various  characteristic  differences  in  the 


*  AIttest.  Lit.,  1868,  Untersuch 1869. 
t  8th  edition  of  De  Wette’s  Einleit 1869. 


66 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


documents:  (i)  a  thoroughgoing  difference  of  language; 
(2)  a  striking  difference  in  style ;  (3)  difference  in  re¬ 
ligious  conceptions;  (4)  discrepancy  in  historical  state¬ 
ments;  (5)  difference  of  plan  and  method  of  narration. 

The  supplementary  hypothesis  passed  over  into  Eng¬ 
land  through  Samuel  Davidson.*  Davidson  places  the 
Elohist,  a  Levite  in  Judah,  in  the  time  of  Saul ;  the  2d 
Elohist  in  the  time  of  Elisha,  880  B.C. ;  the  Jehovist  in 
the  reign  of  Uzziah.  These  three  were  combined  by  a 
Redactor,  “  with  considerable  independence,  adding  oc¬ 
casionally  a  connecting  link,  omitting  what  seemed  to 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  connection,  abridging  in  dif¬ 
ferent  modes,  and  transposing  pieces  according  to  his 
own  view.”  f  The  date  of  the  completion  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  coincides  with  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy 
in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  whose  author  is  also  respon¬ 
sible  for  the  present  form  of  Joshua4  Dr.  Perowne  also 
adopted  it  in  a  mediating  way;§  Dean  Stanley  unre¬ 
servedly,!  and  others  in  various  forms. 

*  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  1862. 

t  P.  51.  t  Pp.  131  and  421. 

§  “  So  far  then  the  direct  evidence  from  the  Pentateuch  itself  is  not  sufficient 
to  establish  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  every  portion  of  the  five  books.  Certain 
parts  of  Ex.,  Lev.,  and  Numbers,  and  the  whole  of  Deut.  to  the  end  of  chap, 
xxx.,  is  all  that  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses.”  “  There  is, 
therefore,  it  seems,  good  ground  for  concluding  that,  besides  some  smaller  inde¬ 
pendent  documents,  traces  may  be  discovered  of  two  original  historical  works 
which  form  the  basis  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  and  of  the  earlier  chapters  of  Ex¬ 
odus.  Of  these  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Elohistic  is  the  earlier.”  “On 
carefully  weighing  all  the  evidence  hitherto  adduced,  we  can  hardly  question 
without  a  literary  scepticism  which  would  be  most  unreasonable,  that  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  is,  to  a  very  large  extent,  as  early  as  the  time  of  Moses,  though  it  may 
have  undergone  many  later  revisions  and  corrections,  the  last  of  these  being  cer¬ 
tainly  as  late  as  the  time  of  Ezra.  But  as  regards  any  direct  and  unimpeachable 
testimony  to  the  composition  of  the  whole  work  by  Moses,  we  have  it  not.” — 
Smith’s  Dictionary  0/  the  Bible ,  article,  Pentateuch ,  1863. 

||  Lectures  on  the  History  0/  the  Jewish  Church,  Part  II.,  p.  648.  N.  Y., 
1869. 


THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


67 


Delitzsch,  Kurtz,  and  Kleinert,  in  Germany,  also  strove 
to  mediate.  Delitzsch* * * §  held  that  the  legislation  of  Ex¬ 
odus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers  was  Mosaic  legislation, 
but  the  codification  of  the  various  laws  was  made  by  a 
man  like  Eleazar,  in  the  Holy  Land  after  the  conquest, 
who  became  the  author  of  the  Elohistic  document. 
Joshua,  or  one  of  the  elders,  supplemented  this  work  as 
the  Jehovist,  taking  Moses’  Book  of  Deuteronomy  and 
incorporating  it  with  the  rest.  Kurtz  f  abandoned  his 
previous  defence  of  the  traditional  theory,  and  took  the 
ground  that  the  two  streams  of  history  in  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  must  be  distinguished.  He  agreed  with  Delitzsch 
in  the  main,  save  that  he  put  the  codification  of  the 
various  laws  of  the  middle  books  by  a  man  like  Eleazar 
in  the  land  of  Moab.  Kleinert  J  maintained  that  the 
codification  of  the  Deuteronomic  law  took  place  in  the 
time  of  Samuel, §  and  that  it  was  set  in  its  historical  rim 
with  the  other  discourses  and  songs  by  Samuel,  the  great 
reformer.!  The  redaction  of  our  Pentateuch  was  placed 
in  the  time  of  Hezekiah.^f  Lange  **  also  took  a  medi¬ 
ating  position. 

In  a  critical  examination  of  the  supplementary  hypoth¬ 
esis  we  must  distinguish  between  the  theory  and  the 
facts  upon  which  it  is  grounded.  We  should  not  allow 
ourselves  to  be  influenced  by  the  circumstance  that  many 
of  the  scholars  who  have  been  engaged  in  these  re¬ 
searches  have  been  rationalistic  or  semi-rationalistic  in 
their  religious  opinions ;  and  that  they  have  employed 


*  Comm,  on  Genesis,  1852.  3d  edit.,  i860.  4th  ed.,  1872. 

+  Gesch.  des  Alten  Bnndes ,  1855,  Bd.  iii.,  p.  554. 

X  Deuteronotnium  und  der  Deuteronomiker ,  1872. 

§  P.  153-  II  P.  242.  H  P.  247. 

**  Commentary  on  Genesis.  American  4th  edition,  1870,  p.  98.  Commentary 
on  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  1876,  p.  10.  » 


68 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


the  methods  and  styles  peculiar  to  the  German  scholar¬ 
ship  of  our  century.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  mo¬ 
tives  and  influences  that  led  to  these  investigations,  the 
questions  we  have  to  determine  are :  (i)  What  are  the 
facts  of  the  case  ?  and  (2)  do  the  theories  account  for  the 
facts  ? 

(1).  Looking  at  the  facts  of  the  case  we  note  that  the 
careful  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  by  so  large  a  number 
of  the  ablest  Biblical  scholars  of  the  age  has  brought 
about  general  agreement  as  to  the  following  points : 

(a)  An  Elohistic  writing  extending  through  the  Hex¬ 
ateuch,  written  by  a  priestly  writer,  commonly  therefore 
designated  by  P.  (b)  A  Jahvistic  writing,  also  extend¬ 
ing  through  the  Hexateuch,  designated  by  J.  (< c )  A 
second  Elohistic  writing  in  close  connection  with  the 
Jahvist,  designated  by  E.  ( d )  The  Deuteronomic  writ¬ 
ing,  chiefly  in  Deuteronomy  and  Joshua,  with  a  few 
traces  in  the  earlier  books,  designated  by  D.  (e)  These 
writings  have  been  compacted  by  redactors  who  first 
combined  J  with  E,  then  JE  with  D,  and  at  last  JED 
with  P.  Notwithstanding  the  careful  way  in  which  these 
documents  have  been  compacted  into  a  higher  unity  by 
these  successive  editings,  the  documents  may  be  distin¬ 
guished  by  characteristic  differences,  not  only  in  the  use 
of  the  divine  names,  but  also  in  language  and  style  ;  in 
religious,  doctrinal  and  moral  conceptions ;  in  various 
interpretations  of  the  same  historic  persons  and  events, 
and  in  their  plans  and  methods  of  composition  ;  dif¬ 
ferences  which  are  no  less  striking  than  those  which 
characterize  the  four  Gospels. 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH. 


We  shall  pause  at  this  stage  of  the  historical  develop¬ 
ment  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  in  order 
to  present  some  of  the  arguments  for  the  differences  of 
documents.  We  would  refer  to  the  valuable  work  of 
Prof.  Kautzsch,  of  Halle,  who  presents  all  these  docu¬ 
ments  and  the  work  of  the  several  editors,  so  far  as  they 
can  be  determined,  by  differences  of  type  throughout  the 
Hexateuch.* 

I. —  The  Argument  from  Language . 

The  argument  from  language  may  be  found  in  the  de¬ 
tailed  examination  of  the  whole  Hexateuch  in  the  com¬ 
mentaries  of  Professor  Dillmann  of  the  University  of  Ber¬ 
lin  ;f  and  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament,  recently  published  by  Canon  Driver,  Regius 
Professor  of  Hebrew  at  Oxford,  in  the  International 
Theological  Library .  Canon  Driver  gives  a  list  of  41 
characteristic  phrases  of  D;  50  characteristic  phrases  of 
P  ;  and  20  characteristic  phrases  of  H,  the  code  of  holi- 

*  Die  Heilige  Schri/t  des  Alien  Testaments.  Erster  Halbband,  Freiburg, 
1892. 

t  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch  zum  Alten  Testament ,  Die  Genesis , 
5te  Aufl.,  1SS6.  Die  Bucher  Exodus  und  Leviticus ,  2te  Aufl.,  1880,  Die  Bucher 
Kumen ,  Deuteronomium  und  Josuay  2te  Aufl.,  1886. 


(69) 


YO  THE  hexateuch 

ness  which  was  eventually  taken  up  into  P,  but  for  the 
most  part  remaining  apart  in  the  middle  chapters  of 
Leviticus.  In  the  exhaustive  word-study,  necessary  to 
the  preparation  of  the  new  Hebrew  Lexicon,  evidence 
of  this  kind  is  constantly  disclosing  itself.  It  is  im¬ 
practicable  to  use  such  a  vast  amount  of  evidence  in 
this  volume.  It  will  suffice  to  give  a  number  of  speci¬ 
mens  of  the  usage  of  J  E,  and  a  few  of  the  usage  of 
the  other  documents.  In  the  Appendix  the  word 
lists  of  Driver  may  be  seen,  showing  the  characteristics 
of  D,  H,  and  P.* 

(1) .  The  month  Abib  is  used  in  JED,  Ex.  xiii.  4, 
xxiii.  15,  xxxiv.  18,  18;  Dt.  xvi.  1,  1  ; — but  not  in  P, 
which  uses  instead  “the  first  month fi  Ex.  xii.  2,  18,  xl. 
2,  17;  Lev.  xxiii.  5  ;  Nu.  ix.  1,  xxviii.  16,  xxxiii.  3  ;  for 
which  Nisan  in  Ne.  ii.  1,  Est.  iii.  7. 

(2) .  nmx  is  a  characteristic  word  of  J,  used  very 

often  for  the  ground  as  tilled  and  yielding  sustenance, 
as  landed  property,  as  material  substance  out  of  which 
things  are  made  ;  as  territory,  and  of  the  earth  as  inhab¬ 
ited.  In  these  senses  it  is  used  less  frequently  by  E  D  ; 
but  never  by  P,  who  uses  instead.  P  uses 

only  four  times,  and  in  these  passages  of  the  earth’s 
visible  surface,  Gn.  i.  25,  vi.  20;  Lev.  xx.  25  ;  Nu.xvi.  30. 

(3) *  food  is  used  by  JED,  and  by  P  in  Lev. 

xi.  34,  xxv.  37,  but  used  only  by  P  and  Ezekiel. 

(4) -  handmaid  is  used  in  E  16  t,  H  3  t,  D  8  t,  for 

which  nnSiD  is  used  by  J  and  P. 

t  ;  • 

(5) *  and  verily  are  used  by  J  E,  for 

T  •  T  T*  •  • 

which  D  and  P  use 

(6) .  Amonte ,  as  the  general  name  of  the  ancient  pop- 


*  See  Appendix  II. 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH 


n 


ulation  of  both  West  and  East  Palestine,  is  used  by  E, 
Gn.  xv.  16,  xlviii.  22;  Nu.  xxi.  21,  31  f.,  Jos.  xxiv.  8, 
12,  15,  18,  for  which  J  prefers  Canaanite,  Gn.  xii.  6,  xiii. 
7,  xxiv.  3,  37,  xxxiv.  30. 

(7) .  The  first  personal  pronoun  -13^  is  used  in  D,  ex¬ 
cept  twice;  in  J  E  by  preference  81  times,  "02S 

48  times),  due  in  large  measure  to  E,  which  prefers  it. 
But  the  shorter  form  15 is  used  in  H  and  P  about  130 
times  (always  except  Gn.  xxiii.  4).  This  corresponds 
with  Ezekiel,  who  uses  it  138  times  and  only 

xxxvi.  28  ;  the  Chronicler,  who  uses  it  30  times  and 
■»3!D&  only  I  Ch.  xvii.  1  ;  and  Daniel,  who  uses  it  23  times 
and  135^  only  in  x.  11.  These  exceptions  are  doubtless 
due  to  scribal  error. 

(8) .  ib3  with  finite  verb  only  in  Gn.  xxxi.  20  (E). 

(9) -  ozvner,  husband ,  lord ,  and  as  noun  of  relation, 

and  Baal ,  the  Canaanitish  god,  is  often  used  by  E  and 
D,  but  never  used  by  J  H  P. 

(10) .  323  to  be  brutish ,  twice  in  E  and  3*i23  brute ,  5 

“  T 

times  in  E,  not  elsewhere  in  Hexateuch. 

(11) .  lira  in  the  meaning  of  body ,  is  used  only  in  P  of 

the  Hexateuch,  elsewhere  in  Ecclesiastes,  and  in  Poetry. 

(12) .  tin 3  to  drive  out ,  in  J  E  not  elsewhere  in  the 

•  •  •  •  •' 

Hexateuch. 

Os)*  £■)!$  333  speak  with,  in  P  19  times,  E  5  times,  D 

once,  in  J  never  used.  J  uses  instead  32  333,  so  in  J  E 

**  •  •  •  • 

1 1  times,  D  twice,  but  P  never  uses  it. 

(14)-  tiwn  likeness ,  similitude ,  is  used  in  P  and  Eze- 

kiel,  elsewhere  in  the  Bible  only  in  the  exilic  Isaiah, 
xiii.  4,  xl.  18;  2  K.  xvi.  10;  2  Ch.  iv.  3;  Ps.  lv-iii.  5; 
Dan.  x.  16. 


72 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


(15) .  a  flowing ,  liberty ,  only  in  P  of  the  Hexa- 

teuch,  Ex.  xxx.  23  ;  Lv.  xxv.  10;  elsewhere  Jer.  xxxiv. 
8,  15,  17;  Is.  lxi.  1  ;  Ez.  xlvi.  17. 

(16) .  HTn  behold ,  is  only  in  E  in  the  Hexateuch ;  else- 

TT 

where  chiefly  in  Job,  Psalms,  and  Isaiah. 

(17) .  sin,  Gn.  xx.  9  (E);  Ex.  xxxii.  21,  30,  31 

T  *T"  • 

(J) ;  elsewhere  only  2  Kings  xvii.  21  ;  Ps.  xxxii.  1  ;  xl. 
7,  cix.  7. 

(18) .  ‘in  Gn.  xxv.  6,  xliii.  7,  27,  28,  xlv.  28,  xlvi. 

30  (J);  Gn.  xlv.  3,  26;  Ex.  iv.  18  (E);  Dt.  xxxi.  27; — 
but  not  in  H  or  P  ;  elsewhere  only  1  Sam.  xx.  14;  2 
Sam.  xii.  22,  xviii.  14 ;  1  K.  xx.  32. 

(19) .  j-n1  cast,  throw ,  shoot ,  only  in  JE  of  Hexateuch, 

Gn.  xxxi.  51;  Ex.  xv.  4,  xix.  13;  Nu.  xxi.  30;  Jos. 
xviii.  6;  but  as  Hiphil,  to  teach ,  in  all  the  documents. 
(20.)  The  shorter  form  ^b  is  always  used  in  J  and  P, 

the  longer  form  ^b  is  always  used  in  the  law  codes  of 

T  * ' 

D  and  H.  In  E  the  usage  is  mixed. 

(21) .  in  the  meaning,  vision ,  in  the  Hexateuch 

T  • 

only  in  E,  Gn.  xlvi.  2 ;  Nu.  xii.  6  ;  elsewhere  1  Sam.  iii. 
15  ;  Ez.  i.  1,  viii.  3,  xl.  2,  xliii.  3,  Dn.  x.  7-16. 

(22) .  The  phrases  n&Ofa  flgp,  Gn.  xii.  n,xxix.  17  (J); 

•  •  • 

2  Sam.  xiv.  27  ;  n&Ofc(n)  ^13^,  Gn.  xii.  2,  4  ;  fifcTifa 

•  •  •  •  •  •  •  «  •  •  • 

•  •  •  •  •  • 

Gn.  xxxix.  6,  1  Sam.  xvii.  42  ;  Gn.  xxiv. 

•  •  •  —  — “ 

•  • 

16,  xxvi.  7  (J) ;  2  Sam.  xi.  2,  Est.  i.  1 1,  ii.  2,  3,  7; 

Dn.  i.  4;  fi&Ofrb  nftrtD*  Gn.  ii.  9  (J) ,  not 
•  •  •  ™  •  •  •  •  •  —  •  »  •  •  •  ' 

found  elsewhere. 

(23) *  rDtfbfr  in  the  meaning,  business,  occupation,  is 

T*  T  • 

used  in  Gn.  xxxix.  1  (J) ;  in  the  meaning  property.  Ex. 
xxii.  7,  10(E),  Gn.  xxxiii.  14  (J) ;  but  in  the  sense  of 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH  73 

work,  it  is  frequent  in  P  and  the  Chronicler ;  elsewhere 
in  the  Hexateuch  only  in  the  reason  of  the  Fourth 
Commandment, Ex.  xx.9,  io,=Dt.  v.  13,  14,  and  Dt.  xvi.  8. 

(24) .  breath ,  Gn.  ii.  7,  vii.  22  (J)  and  «TftTb5(n)-bD 

every  breathing  thing,  Dt.  xx.  16;  Jos.  x.  40,  xi.  11,  14 
(all  D) ;  neither  elsewhere  in  the  Hexateuch. 

(25) .  fcOS  serve,  3  times  in  P,  not  elsewhere  in  Hexa¬ 
teuch. 

war,  13  times  in  p,  ana  15  times  in  P,  5 

T  T 

times  in  Chronicles ;  service,  P,  8  times ;  elsewhere  in 
Hexateuch  only  Dt.  xxiv.  5,  Jos.  iv.  13  (D) ;  in  the 
meaning  army,  host,  47  times  in  P,  23  times  in  Chroni¬ 
cler  ;  elsewhere  in  Hexateuch,  Gn.  xxi.  22,  32  (E),  xxvi. 
26  (J),  Jos.  v.  14,  15  ;  of  heavenly  bodies,  twice  in  P; 
of  the  entire  creation,  Gn.  ii.  1  (P). 

(26) .  tribe,  is  used  by  P  about  100  times:  J  uses 

tDitf  instead. 

•  •  •  • 

•  • 

(27) .  J  uses  the  Qal  ‘lb1  beget ;  but  P  uses  instead  the 
Hiphil  Tbin  60  times. 

(28) .  The  Mount  of  the  Lawgiving  is  called  Horeb  in 
E  and  D,  but  Sinai  in  J  and  P. 

(29) .  E  uses  a  large  number  of  archaic  words  such  as 

F?  Nu.  xx.  21  for  5  Gn.  xxxi.  28,  Gn. 

1.  20,  Ex.  xviii.  18  for  ;  tibu  Ex. 

•  •  •  •  % 

iii.  19,  Nu.  xxii.  13,  16,  fort-fib;  PlTl  Gn.  xlvi.  3  for 

•  •  •  •  ^ 

trn ;  run  Ex.  u.  4  for 

•  •  •  •  •  •  MB  — 

•  •  4 

These  are  only  specimens  of  a  vast  array  of  words. 
Many  others  will  appear  when  we  come  to  the  argu¬ 
ment  from  Religion  and  Doctrine.* 


*  See  pp.  101  seq 149  seq. 


74 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Each  of  the  four  writers  has  his  favorite  words  and 
phrases.  They  all  use  essentially  the  same  vocabulary, 
because  they  use  the  same  language  and  the  same  dia¬ 
lect,  with  the  exception  of  E,  who  shows  traces  of  an  oc¬ 
casional  use  of  the  Ephraimitic  dialect;  but  there  are 
certain  terms  and  phrases  which  are  characteristic  of 
each.  Dr.  Green,  in  his  recent  book  on  the  Hebrew 
Feasts,  misrepresents  this  line’of  argument.  He  thinks 
that  he  has  disproved  the  difference  of  style  between 
the  several  authors  compacted  in  Ex.  xii.-xiii.,  by  point¬ 
ing  to  an  occasional  use  of  the  favorite  words  of  one  au¬ 
thor  by  another  author.  But  this  is  an  avoidance  of 
the  question  at  issue.  Those  who  are  in  the  habit  of 
using  the  methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  whether  in 
the  study  of  the  classics,  of  the  Vedas,  of  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  writers,  or  of  Shakespeare,  know  very  well  that  there 
is  an  ascending  scale  in  the  use  of  words  and  phrases 
when  we  compare  author  with  author  in  any  language, 
(i).  The  great  majority  of  words  and  phrases  are  the 
common  stock  of  the  language  used  by  all.  (2).  The 
same  theme  leads  to  the  use  of  similar  words  and 
phrases.  (3).  Differences  begin  in  the  percentage  of  use 
of  certain  words  and  phrases.  That  which  is  occasional 
with  one  writer  is  common  with  another,  and  the  re¬ 
verse.  (4).  There  are  a  few  words  and  expressions  which 
are  peculiar  to  certain  authors,  used  by  one  author  and 
avoided  by  other  authors. 

II. —  Difference  of  Style. 

It  is  agreed  among  critics  that  E  is  brief,  terse,  and  ar¬ 
chaic  in  his  style.  J  is  poetic  and  descriptive — as  Well- 
hausen  says,  “  the  best  narrator  in  the  Bible.”  His 
imagination  and  fancy  are  ever  active.  P  is  annalis¬ 
tic  and  diffuse — fond  of  names  and  dates.  He  aims  at 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH  75 

precision  and  completeness.  The  logical  faculty  prevails. 
There  is  little  color.  D  is  rhetorical  and  hortatory, 
practical  and  earnest.  His  aim  is  instruction  and  guid¬ 
ance.  This  difference  of  style  was  noted  by  Simon,  and 
has  been  carefully  traced  by  criticism  in  our  day.  There 
are  those  who  try  to  explain  away  this  difference  as  oc¬ 
casioned  by  the  difference  of  theme,  but  this  does  not 
account  for  the  difference  of  style  in  the  parallel  treat¬ 
ment  of  the  same  theme.  And  then  the  differences  of 
style  are  alongside  of  the  differences  in  the  use  of  words 
and  phrases  and  the  divine  names.  There  is  as  great 
a  difference  in  style  between  the  different  documents  of 
the  Hexateuch  as  there  is  between  the  four  Gospels. 
Kautzsch  and  Socin  have  recently  presented  the  differ¬ 
ent  documents  of  Genesis  in  different  kinds  of  type.* 
Bacon  has  exhibited  them  apart  by  themselves.f 

III. — Parallel  Narratives. 

Another  line  of  evidence  is  the  very  large  number  of 
doublets  and  triplets.  (1).  There  are  two  accounts  of 
the  creation  which  have  recently  been  discovered  to  be 
two  ancient  poems.  In  the  Pentameter  poem,  Gen.  i., 
God  creates  by  speaking.  He  is  conceived  as  a  com¬ 
mander  of  an  army,  summoning  his  troops  into  the  field, 
line  upon  line,  until  they  all  stand  before  him  for  review, 
an  organized  host.  In  the  Trimeter  poem,  Gn.  ii.,  there 
is  a  rapid  change  of  image.  God  uses  His  hands  in  cre¬ 
ation.  He  plants  the  garden  in  Eden  as  a  gardener. 
He  moulds  the  forms  of  men  and  animals  out  of  the  soil 
of  the  ground  like  a  sculptor.  He  builds  the  form  of  Eve 
from  a  piece  of  the  body  of  man  like  a  builder. 

In  the  Pentameter  poem  the  divine  Spirit  is  conceived 


*  Die  Genesis  mit  dusserer  Unterscheidung  der  Quellenschr i/ten ,  1888. 
t  The  Genesis  cf  Genesis ,  1891. 


76 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


as  a  bird  hovering  over  the  original  chaos  with  creative 
energy.  In  the  T rimeter  poem  God’s  breath,  proceeding 
from  the  divine  nostrils  into  the  nostrils  of  the  creatures, 
imparts  the  breath  of  life. 

In  the  Pentameter  poem  a  waste,  an  empty  abyss,  is 
conceived  as  prior  to  the  first  creative  word,  and  light 
appears  as  the  first  of  God’s  creations  to  fill  this  abyss 
with  illumination.  In  the  Trimeter  poem  a  rainless 
ground  without  vegetable  and  animal  life  is  conceived  as 
prior  to  the  first  divine  activity  which  was  forming  a 
single  man,  Adam.  The  order  of  creation  is  different. 
In  the  Pentameter  poem  six  orders  of  creation  appear 
instantaneously  in  obedience  to  the  creative  word  on  the 
mornings  of  six  creative  days :  (i).  Light,  (2).  Ex¬ 
panse,  (3).  Dry  land  and  vegetables,  (4).  The  great 
luminaries,  (5).  Animals  of  water  and  air,  (6).  Land 
animals  and  mankind. 

In  the  Trimeter  poem,  the  ground  is  conceived  as  al¬ 
ready  existing,  the  great  luminaries  are  left  out  of 
consideration,  and  the  order  is  (1),  Adam;  (2),  trees; 
(3),  animals ;  and  (4),  Eve.  The  result  of  the  divine 
inspection  differs  greatly  in  the  two  poems.  In  the 
Pentameter  poem,  as  each  order  appears,  it  is  recog¬ 
nized  as  a  good  ”  and  is  then  assigned  its  service.  The 
review  concludes  with  the  approbation,  “  very  excellent.” 
In  the  Trimeter  poem,  which  proposes  to  give  the  origin 
and  development  of  sin,  we  notice  a  striking  antithesis 
to  the  “  good  ”  and  “  very  good  ”  of  the  six  days’  work. 
Thus  it  was  not  good  to  eat  of  the  prohibited  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  “  It  was  not  good  that  the 
man  should  be  alone.  ”  And  the  animals  were  not  good 
for  man.  “  But  for  man  there  was  not  found  an  help¬ 
meet  for  him.  ”  The  time  of  the  Pentameter  poem  was 
six  creative  days.  The  time  of  the  Trimeter  was  a  day, 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH  ^7 

unless  we  conceive  that  “day”  has  the  more  general 
sense  of  the  time  when.  In  the  Pentameter,  mankind  was 
created  male  and  female,  a  species  alongside  of  the  spe¬ 
cies  of  animals.  In  the  Trimeter,  first  a  man,  then  after 
the  trees  and  animals  a  woman,  and  a  plurality  of  men  and 
women  only  after  two  great  tragedies  of  sin.  When 
God  reviews  His  organized  host,  according  to  the  Pen¬ 
tameter  poem,  He  looks  approvingly  on  mankind,  male 
and  female,  a  race  whom  He  had  just  created,  and  pro¬ 
nounces  them  at  the  head  and  crown  of  all  His  creations, 
“very  excellent.”  But  according  to  the  Trimeter  poem, 
God  looks  upon  mankind,  male  and  female,  as  a  race,  only 
as  very  evil,  after  Adam  and  Eve  have  sinned,  after  Cain 
has  killed  his  brother  Abel,  after  mankind  has  become  a 
race  in  the  Sethite  line  of  redemption  and  in  the  accursed 
line  of  Cain.  Add  to  these  material  facts,  this  additional 
one  that  the  verb  bara,  in  the  Pentameter  poem,  is  a  word 
seldom  used  except  in  P,  and  the  second  Isaiah  in  the  Qal 
species.  The  Trimeter  poem  uses  asah  for  it  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  usage  of  J  elsewhere,  and  of  all  the  earlier 
writers.  To  these  evidences  we  might  add  the  evi¬ 
dences  from  vocabulary  and  style  which  may  be  found 
in  the  critical  commentaries.  How  any  one  can  look 
these  facts  in  the  face  and  say  that  these  two  accounts 
of  the  creation  came  from  one  and  the  same  writer, 
Moses,  it  is  difficult  to  understand. 

(2).  There  are  two  narratives  of  the  Deluge,  also  two 
poems  of  different  movements  skilfully  compacted  by 
the  redactor  from  J  and  P,  so  that  both  pieces  are 
preserved  almost  complete.  These  give  variant  accounts 
of  the  deluge  and  differ  in  style,  poetical  structure  and 
their  descriptions ;  and  they  agree  in  general  in  vocabu¬ 
lary  and  style  with  the  corresponding  poems  of  J  and  P 
relating  to  the  creation. 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


78 

(3) .  There  are  two  versions  of  the  Ten  Words,  the 
one  in  Deuteronomy,  the  other  in  Exodus,  with  import¬ 
ant  differences.  The  version  in  Exodus  may  be  analyzed 
and  the  reasons  distributed  among  E,  J  and  P.  The 
version  in  Exodus  also  bears  traces  of  the  use  of  the 
Deuteronomic  version,  showing  that  it  is  the  latest 
and  fullest  version,  made  by  the  redactor  of  J,  E, 
D,  and  P,  from  the  versions  in  the  four  documents.  E 
calls  these  tables,  tables  of  stone  ;  J,  tables  of  stone ; 
D,  tables  of  the  covenant ;  P,  tables  of  the  testimony.* 

(4) .  E  and  J  give  three  stories  of  the  peril  of  the 
wives  of  the  patriarchs  at  the  courts  of  Pharaoh  and 
Abimelek  :  Gen.  xii.  10-20  (J) ;  xx.  1— 1 3  (E) ;  xxvi. 
6-1 1  (J).  These  stories,  apart  from  persons  and  places, 
are  so  alike  that  they  may  be,  two  of  them,  parallel 
accounts  of  what  transpired  at  the  court  of  Abimelek, 
the  one  story  referring  to  Isaac,  the  other  to  Abraham. 
And  it  may  be  that  the  story  of  Abraham  at  the  court 
of  Pharaoh  is  only  a  third  variation  of  the  same  story. 
With  similarity  of  theme,  there  are  characteristic  differ¬ 
ences  in  the  language  and  style  of  the  different  narrators. 

(5) .  Among  the  Egyptian  plagues  J  reports  a  mur¬ 
rain,  a  cattle-pest  (Ex.  ix.  1-7).  This  seems  to  be 
a  parallel  plague  to  the  “  boils  breaking  forth  with 
blains  ”  of  P  (Ex.  ix.  8-12),  which  come  upon  man  and 
beast.  These  narratives  exhibit  the  characteristic  differ¬ 
ences  of  these  two  narrators,  f 

(6) .  There  are  three  accounts  of  the  insect  pest.  The 
narratives  of  J  and  E  are  mingled  in  Ex.  viii.  16-28. 
P  stands  by  itself  in  Ex.  viii.  11^-15.  In  J  E  this  pest 
is  ms.  a  swarm  of  insects.  In  P  it  is  lice-  Psalm 
lxxviii.  gives  the  insect  swarm  of  J,  but  omits  the  lice 
of  P,  but  Psalm  cv.  uses  both  of  these  terms. 


*  See  Appendix  III. 


f  See  Appendix  IV. 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH  ^9 

(7) .  There  are  several  versions  of  the  call  and  blessing 
of  Abraham  in  Gen.  xii.  1-3  (J) ;  xv.  4-5  (E) ;  xvii. 
!— 8  (P);  xxii.  15-18  (R),  which  show  the  distinctive 

characteristics  of  the  narrators. 

(8) .  According  to  E,  Joshua  set  up  twelve  stones  in 
the  bed  of  the  Jordan  as  a  memorial  of  the  crossing. 
(Jos.  iv.  7b,  9).  According  to  J,  the  stones  from  the  bed 
of  the  Jordan  were  set  up  at  GilgaL  (Jos.  iv.  20.) 

(9) .  The  rebellion  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the  Reuben- 
ites,  is  referred  to  in  Dt.  xi.  6.  But  no  mention  is  made 
of  the  rebellion  of  the  Levitical  Korahites.  These  two 
rebellions  are  combined  in  the  narrative  Num.  xvi. 
Critical  analysis,  however,  shows  that  the  redactor  has 
here  combined  a  narrative  of  J  E,  which  gives  the  rebel¬ 
lion  of  the  Reubenites  and  is  the  basis  of  the  story  of 
D,  with  a  narrative  of  P,  which  gives  the  story  of  the 
Korahites,  which  is  unknown  to  J  E,  and  therefore 
to  D. 

(10) .  There  are  two  reports  of  the  bringing  of  the  water 
from  the  rock.  The  one,  Ex.  xvii.,  is  in  the  wilderness 
of  Sin,  early  in  the  wanderings;  the  other,  Num.  xx.,  is 
in  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  forty  years  after.  The  former 
is  in  the  narrative  of  J  E,  the  latter  in  the  narrative  ol 
P.  The  question  thus  arises  whether  these  are  not  va¬ 
riant  accounts  of  the  same  miracle,  occasioned  by  an 
unconscious  mistake  of  Sin  for  Zin.  This  is  a  case  very 
much  like  the  two  stories  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple 
by  Jesus,  the  one  in  the  synoptists  at  the  last  passover 
of  Jesus,  the  other  in  the  Gospel  of  John  at  the  first 
passover.  There  is  room  for  difference  of  opinion  re¬ 
garding  both  of  these  events;  but  whether  they  are 
different  events  or  not,  the  stories  being  about  the  same 
essential  thing,  the  differences  between  J  E  and  P,  in 
the  report  of  the  water  from  the  rock,  are  just  as  great 


80 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


as  those  between  John  and  the  synoptists  in  the  story 
of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple. 

Many  other  instances  might  be  given,  but  so  many 
are  reserved  for  the  discussion  of  the  development  of  the 
legislation  and  for  the  argument  as  to  the  date  of  the 
documents,  that  these  may  suffice  for  the  present. 


VIII. 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY. 

Having  given  some  of  the  evidences  for  the  Analysis 
of  the  Documents  we  shall  now  consider  the  question  of 
the  date  of  Deuteronomy.  The  supplementary  hypothe¬ 
sis  tried  to  determine  the  order  and  fix  the  time  of  the 
genesis  or  production  of  these  various  documents.  The 
pivot  of  the  whole  is  the  theory  of  De  Wette,  that  Deu¬ 
teronomy  was  composed  shortly  before  the  reform  of 
Josiah.  This  theory  is  based  on  the  statements  of 
2  Kings  xxii.  3  f.,*  as  to  discovery  of  the  lost  law 
book.  The  arguments  in  support  of  this  theory,  as 
stated  by  the  late  Prof.  Riehm,  of  Halle,  are  as  follows : 

He  argues  (1)  that  Deuteronomy  was  not  written  until 
some  time  after  the  conquest,  by  the  expression 
“within  thy  gates”;  the  statement,  ii.  12,  “as  Israel  did 
unto  the  land  of  his  possession,  which  Yahweh  gave  unto 
them  and  the  ancient  landmarks,  xix.  14.  The  first 
and  last  are  often  explained  from  the  prophetic  point  of 
view  of  the  Deuteronomic  code  which  looks  forward  to 
the  prolonged  occupation  of  the  Holy  Land  and  shapes 
the  legislation  accordingly.  The  middle  one  is  explained 
as  a  redactor’s  note  of  explanation.  But  while  these 


(81) 


*See  p.  15  seq. 


82 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


explanations  might  satisfy  if  there  were  no  other  reasons 
against  Mosaic  authorship,  they  more  naturally  indicate 
a  long  occupation  of  the  land  when  the  code  was 
framed  in  its  present  form.  (2).  The  book  is  pushed 
down  to  the  reign  of  Solomon  by  the  law  of  the  king 
(xxviii.  36 ;  compare  xvii.  14-20),  and  its  prohibition  of 
horses  and  chariots  and  many  wives.  We  cannot  deny 
to  Moses  the  conception  of  a  future  kingdom  in  Israel. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Israelites  had  just  come  out 
of  bondage  to  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  that  they  were 
surrounded  by  nations  having  kings ;  it  was  natural  to 
think  of  kings  for  Israel  likewise.  The  subsequent  pro¬ 
vision  of  temporary  judges  or  rulers  called  by  God  and 
endued  with  His  Spirit,  is  not  contemplated  in  the 
Deuteronomic  code.  A  king  would  be  the  likely  thing 
in  the  subsequent  times  after  the  conquest.  If  the 
Deuteronomic  code  had  this  ideal,  such  a  law  in  the 
code  might  be  regarded  as  appropriate.  The  reproof  by 
Samuel  of  a  subsequent  desire  for  a  king  might  be  in 
view  of  the  altered  circumstances.  The  nation  was  not 
ripe  for  the  kingdom,  as  the  history  of  Saul  clearly  indi¬ 
cates.  It  was  premature  on  the  part  of  the  people,  pre¬ 
sumptuous,  and  overriding  the  divine  provision  of  the 
temporary  judges  or  saviors.  And  yet  while  all  this 
speculation  may  be  true,  it  is  not  so  natural  an  interpre¬ 
tation  as  that  the  law  was  made  in  view  of  the  historic 
occasions  for  it  which  were  first  in  Solomon’s  time,  and 
that  the  law  of  the  king  was  given  when  Israel  had 
ripened  into  a  kingdom. 

(3).  Riehm  presses  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy 
down  to  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  by  the  law  of  the  su¬ 
preme  judiciary  at  one  place,  Deut.  xvii.  8  seq .,  which  did 
not  exist  till  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  2  Chron.  xix.  8-1 1. 
(4).  He  presses  it  down  to  the  time  of  Hezekiah  on 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY 


83 


account  of  the  one  only  central  altar  which  was  not 
realized  till  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  2  Kings  xviii.  4 ;  2 
Chron.  xxxi.  1 ;  Isaiah  xxxvi.  7.  The  facts  are  that  the 
one  place  of  judgment  and  the  one  exclusive  altar  were 
not  realized  until  the  times  mentioned,  as  the  ideal  of 
the  king  was  not  realized  until  the  Davidic  dynasty;  but 
do  these  facts  disprove  the  promulgation  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  in  the  land  of  Moab?  These  facts  prove 
the  non-observance  of  the  code,  the  disregard  of  it,  and 
possibly  also  ignorance  of  it ;  they  favor  its  non-exist¬ 
ence,  but  do  not  entirely  prove  it.  If  we  could  present 
good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  the  opinion  that  the 
Deuteronomic  code  is  a  prophetic  ideal  code,  given 
before  the  conquest  in  view  of  a  long  sojourn  of  the 
nation  in  Palestine,  these  facts  might  be  explained. 
But  the  difficulty  is  to  find  such  reasons.  Who  can 
prove  it  ? 

(5) .  Riehm  fixes  the  composition  in  the  time  of  Ma- 
nasseh  and  the  reign  of  Psammeticus  on  account  of 
the  going  down  to  Egypt  in  ships,  Deut.  xxviii.  68. 
The  author  of  Deuteronomy ,  the  People' s  Book ,  (Lon¬ 
don,  1877),  has  referred  to  The  Records  of  the  Past , 
(vi.,  p.  37,)  for  a  statement  from  the  time  of  Rameses 
III.,  which  shows  the  equipment  of  fleets  on  the  Med¬ 
iterranean  at  that  time.  This  was  therefore  quite  pos¬ 
sible  for  Moses  to  conceive  of.  But  if  the  other  reasons 
for  a  late  date  are  valid  this  helps  to  give  the  date  more 
closely. 

Canon  Driver  gives  additional  reasons  as  follows : 

(6) .  “  The  forms  of  idolatry  alluded  to,  especially  the 
worship  of  the  “  host  of  heaven  ”  (iv.  19  ;  xvii.  3),  seem  to 
point  to  the  middle  period  of  the  monarchy.  It  is  true, 
the  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon  is  ancient,  as  is  attested 
even  by  the  names  of  places  in  Canaan ;  but  in  the  no- 


84 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


tices  (which  are  frequent)  of  idolatrous  practices  in  Judges 
to  Kings,  no  mention  occurs  of  “  the  host  of  heaven  ” 
till  the  period  of  the  later  kings.  That  the  cult  is  pre¬ 
supposed  in  Dt.  and  not  merely  anticipated  propheti¬ 
cally,  seems  clear  from  the  terms  in  which  it  is  referred 
to.  While  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  affirm  positively 
that  the  danger  was  not  felt  earlier,  the  law,  as  formu¬ 
lated  in  Dt.,  seems  designed  to  meet  the  form  which  the 
cult  assumed  at  a  later  age.” 

(7) .  “  The  influence  of  Dt.  upon  subsequent  writers  is 
clear  and  indisputable.  It  is  remarkable,  now,  that  the 
early  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea,  and  the  undisputed  por¬ 
tions  of  Isaiah,  show  no  certain  traces  of  this  influence ; 
Jeremiah  exhibits  marks  of  it  on  nearly  every  page; 
Zephaniah  and  Ezekiel  are  also  evidently  influenced  by 
it.  If  Dt.  were  composed  in  the  period  between  Isaiah 
and  Jeremiah,  these  facts  would  be  exactly  accounted 
for.” 

(8) .  “  The  prophetic  teaching  of  Dt.,  the  point  of  view 
from  which  the  laws  are  presented,  the  principles  by 
which  conduct  is  estimated,  presuppose  a  relatively  ad¬ 
vanced  stage  of  theological  reflection,  as  they  also  ap¬ 
proximate  to  what  is  found  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.” 

(9) .  “  In  Dt.  xvi.  22,  we  read,  *  Thou  shalt  not  set  thee 
up  a  mazzebah  (obelisk  or  pillar),  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  hateth/  Had  Isaiah  known  of  this  law  he  would 
hardly  have  adopted  the  mazzebah  (xix.  19)  as  a  symbol 
of  the  conversion  of  Egypt  to  the  true  faith,  the  sup¬ 
position  that  heathen  pillars  are  meant  in  Dt.  is  not 
favored  by  the  context  (v.  21b)  ;  the  use  of  these  has, 
moreover,  been  proscribed  before  (vii.  5  ;  xii.  3).”  * 

Riehm  f  represents  the  Deuteronomic  code  as  a  liter- 


*  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament ,  pp.  82,  83. 
f  In  /.  c .,  p.  *12. 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY 


85 


ary  fiction.  The  author  lets  Moses  appear  as  a  pro¬ 
phetic,  popular  orator,  and  as  the  first  priestly  reader  of 
the  law.  It  is  a  literary  fiction  as  Ecclesiastes  is  a  lit¬ 
erary  fiction.  The  latter  uses  the  person  of  Solomon  as 
the  master  of  wisdom  to  set  forth  the  lesson  of  wisdom. 
The  former  uses  Moses  as  the  great  lawgiver,  to  promul¬ 
gate  divine  laws. 

We  shall  now  adduce  on  the  other  side  what  seem  to 
be  the  chief  obstacles  to  the  composition  of  Deuter¬ 
onomy  in  the  age  of  Josiah.  (1).  The  statement  of  2 
Kings  xxii.  3  f.  is  to  the  effect  that  a  law  book  was  dis¬ 
covered  which  had  for  a  long  period  been  neglected,  and 
whose  commands  had  been  so  long  disobeyed  that  the 
nation  was  rejected  by  Yahweh  on  that  account.  The 
Deuteronomic  code  had  been  lost  sight  of  by  kings  and 
princes  and  the  priesthood,  the  entire  official  class  of  the 
nation.  This  neglect  was  a  national  and  a  terrible  sin 
that  involved  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  exile  of  the 
nation.  Under  these  circumstances  a  law  book  issued 
as  a  legal  fiction  would  be  most  extraordinary.  How 
could  the  nation  incur  such  a  penalty  for  trangressing 
laws  which  were  now  promulgated  for  the  first  time?  A 
long  series  of  violations  is  presupposed.  The  laws  can¬ 
not,  therefore,  date  from  a  period  shortly  before  this  Re¬ 
form.  The  code  was  presented  as  an  ancient  and  long- 
neglected  law  book.  This  argumentation  makes  it  evi¬ 
dent  that  an  ancient  law  book  was  discovered,  but  it  does 
not  prove  that  that  code  is  the  same  as  the  present  rhe¬ 
torical  Deuteronomy.  If  an  ancient  law  book  of  Moses 
had  been  found  and  its  legislation  was  put  in  a  rhetorical 
form  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  this  reasoning  would  be  satis¬ 
fied.  As  Canon  Driver  says: 

• 

“  The  new  element  in  Dt.  is  thus  not  the  laws,  but  their  pare- 
netic  setting.  Deuteronomy  may  be  described  as  the  prophetic 


86 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


re-formulation ,  and  adaptation  to  new  needs ,  of  an  older  legisla¬ 
te.  Judging  from  the  manner  in  which  the  legislation  of  JE  is 
dealt  with  in  Dt.,  it  is  highly  probable  that  there  existed  the  tra¬ 
dition — perhaps  even  in  a  written  form — of  a  final  address  deliv¬ 
ered  by  Moses  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  to  which  some  of  the  laws 
peculiar  to  Dt.  were  attached,  as  those  common  to  it  and  JE  are 
attached  to  the  legislation  at  Horeb.  There  would  be  a  more 
obvious  motive  for  the  plan  followed  by  the  author  if  it  could  be 
supposed  that  he  worked  thus  upon  a  traditional  basis.  But  be 
that  as  it  may,  the  bulk  of  the  laws  contained  in  Dt.  is  undoubt¬ 
edly  far  more  ancient  than  the  time  of  the  author  himself:  and 
in  dealing  with  them  as  he  has  done,  in  combining  them  into  a 
manual  for  the  guidance  of  the  people,  and  providing  them  with 
hortatory  introductions  and  comments,  he  cannot,  in  the  light  of 
the  parallels  that  have  been  referred  to,  be  held  to  be  guilty  of 
dishonesty  or  literary  fraud.  There  is  nothing  in  Dt.  implying  an 
interested  or  dishonest  motive  on  the  part  of  the  (post-Mosaic) 
author :  and  this  being  so,  its  moral  and  spiritual  greatness  re¬ 
mains  unimpaired  ;  its  inspired  authority  is  in  no  respect  less  than 
that  of  any  other  part  of  the  O.  T.  Scriptures  which  happens  to 
be  anonymous.”* 

(2).  There  are  several  laws  in  the  Deuteronomic  code 
which  are  inappropriate  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  and 
which  can  only  be  explained  in  connection  with  the  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  Israel  in  the  earliest  history.  The  com¬ 
mands  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  and  the  Amalekites, 
with  their  circumstances  of  detail  (Deut.  vii.  22  ;  xx.  19; 
xxv.  17);  the  general  laws  of  war  (Deut.  xx.  1— 1 5  ;  xxi. 
10-14),  and  others,  are  appropriate  only  in  connection 
with  the  first  occupation  of  the  holy  land  and  not  in  the 
time  when  Israel  was  threatened  only  by  foreign  ene¬ 
mies.  But  these  laws  may  be  ancient  laws  from  the 
ancient  code  taken  up  into  the  Deuteronomic  code  in  its 
present  rhetorical  form.  They  do  not  prove  that  the 
code  in  its  present  rhetorical  form  is  ancient. 


*  Liter,  of  the  O.  T.,  p.  85. 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY 


87 


(3) .  The  circumstances  of  the  reign  of  Josiah  were  un¬ 
favorable  to  the  promulgation  and  enforcement  of  a  new 
code  of  the  character  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation, 
and  Jeremiah  was  the  last  man  to  be  the  most  zealous 
champion  of  such  a  code.  The  opposition  to  such  a  code 
coming  down  from  the  previous  times  of  Manasseh  and 
breaking  out  immediately  on  the  death  of  Josiah,  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  customs  and  prejudices  of  the  nation, 
would  have  been  too  great  to  be  overcome  save  by  a 
code  claiming  and  gaining  recognition  as  of  ancient  and 
divine  authority;  and  Jeremiah  and  the  author  of  the 
Books  of  Kings,  who  are  full  of  the  spirit  and  ideas  of 
Deuteronomy,  could  not  have  been  deceived  in  such  mat¬ 
ters  and  would  not  have  joined  hands  to  deceive  the 
people  even  with  the  pious  end  in  view  of  serving  Yahweh 
and  saving  the  nation.  This  is  valid  as  against  a  new 
code, but  not  against  a  newcodification  of  an  ancient  code. 

(4) .  The  language  of  Jeremiah  and  of  the  Books  of 
Kings  is  no  longer  the  old  classic  Hebrew,  but  inter¬ 
mediate  in  the  historic  development  of  the  language, 
showing  a  breaking  off  from  classic  usage,  as,  for  in¬ 
stance,  in  the  occasional  neglect  of  the  waw  consec.  of 
the  imperfect,  and  the  use  of  waw  conj.  with  the  perfect 
instead.  But  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  classic  in  its 
language  throughout.  In  view  of  the  fact  of  the  re¬ 
semblance  of  Jeremiah  and  the  Books  of  Kings  to 
Deuteronomy  in  other  respects,  this  difference  of  lan¬ 
guage  is  the  more  striking,  showing  that  Jeremiah  and 
the  author  of  Kings  were  imbued  with  the  spirit  of 
Deuteronomy  as  an  ancient  law  book  of  divine  author¬ 
ity,  but  that  it  must  be  placed  in  an  earlier  period  of  the 
languuge.  But  the  time  of  Josiah  was  not  after  all  late 
for  Hebrew  literature.  We  must  take  account  of  the  fact 
that  the  author  was  recodifying  an  ancient  code,  and  so 


88 


THE  IIEXATEUCH 


would  be  influenced  to  use  an  archaic  style  and  preserve 
as  far  as  possible  the  flavor  of  the  original,  just  as  do 
the  compilers  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  And 
Deuteronomy  has  its  peculiarities  of  language,  many  of 
which  correspond  with  the  editorial  framework  of  the 
books  of  Kings.  As  Canon  Driver  says :  “  The  lan¬ 
guage  and  style  of  Dt.,  clear  and  flowing,  free  from 
archaisms,  but  purer  than  that  of  Jeremiah,  would  suit 
the  same  period.  It  is  difficult  in  this  connexion  not  to 
feel  the  force  of  Dillmann’s  remark  (p.  6n),  that  ‘the 
style  of  Dt.  implies  a  long  development  of  the  art  of 
public  oratory,  and  is  not  of  a  character  to  belong  to 
the  first  age  of  Iraelitish  literature.’  ”* 

(5) .  The  Mosaic  prophecy,  Deut.  xviii.  15  sq .,  pre¬ 
dicts  another  prophet  like  Moses,  who  will  fulfil  and 
complete  his  legislation  with  divine  authority.  It  does 
not  recognize  an  order  of  prophets.  Nabi ,  in  our  opin¬ 
ion,  is  never  used  as  a  collective.  If  this  passage  came 
from  the  period  of  the  kings  and  prophets  there  could 
hardly  fail  to  be  allusions  to  the  prophetic  order,  or  to 
other  prophets  of  Yahweh.  We  find  in  Jeremiah  and  in 
Isaiah  liii.,  where  the  Messianic  prophet  again  comes 
into  prominence  in  the  Messianic  idea,  such  references, 
and  we  would  expect  them  in  Deuteronomy  under  the 
same  circumstances.  This  prophecy  is  Mosaic  in  es¬ 
sence, f  but  that  does  not  prove  that  the  term  Nabi  was 
used  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  this  prophecy  does  not 
carry  with  it  the  whole  code  in  which  it  is  placed. 

(6) .  Looking  now  at  Deuteronomy  itself,  we  note  its 
language  as  to  the  authorship  of  its  code  (xxxi. 
9-1 1,  24-26). 

“  And  Moses  wrote  this  law  and  gave  it  unto  the  priests,  the 


*  /.  c.  p.  83. 


t  See  Briggs’  Messianic  Prophecy. 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY 


89 


sons  of  Levi,  who  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Yahweh,  and 
unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel,  and  Moses  enjoined  them  saying, 
At  the  end  of  seven  years,  in  the  festival  of  the  year  of  release, 
in  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  shall  come  to  appear 
before  the  face  of  Yahweh  thy  God,  in  the  place  which  He  will 
choose,  thou  shalt  read  this  law  before  all  Israel  in  their  ears.” 
“  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Moses  had  finished  writing  the 
words  of  this  law  in  a  book  to  their  end,  Moses  enjoined  the  Le- 
vites,  the  bearers  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Yahweh,  saying  : 
‘  Take  this  book  of  the  law  and  put  it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  Yahweh  your  God,  and  let  it  be  there  for  a  wit¬ 
ness  against  thee.’  ” 

This  seems  to  imply  the  Mosaic  authorship  and  com¬ 
position  of  a  code  of  law,  but  was  that  code  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  in  its  present  form  ?  The  view  of  Delitzsch 
can  hardly  be  regarded  as  doing  violence  to  the  text 
when  he  represents  that  Deuteronomy  is  in  the  same  re¬ 
lation  to  Moses  as  the  fourth  gospel  to  Jesus,  in  that 
as  the  apostle  John  reproduces  the  discourses  of  Jesus, 
so  the  Deuteronomist  reproduces  the  discourses  of 
Moses,  giving  more  attention  to  the  internal  spirit  than 
the  written  form,  and  thus  presents  the  discourses  of 
Moses  in  a  free  rhetorical  manner.  All  that  is  said  may 
be  true  if  we  suppose  that  an  ancient  Mosaic  code  was 
discovered  in  Josiah’s  time  and  that  this  code  was  put  in 
a  popular  rhetorical  form  as  a  people’s  law  book  for 
practical  purposes  under  the  authority  of  the  king, 
prophet  and  priest.  Would  it  be  any  the  less  inspired 
on  that  account?  Were  not  Josiah,  Hilkiah  and  Jere¬ 
miah  capable  of  giving  authority  to  such  a  law  book  as 
a  code  of  divine  law  essentially  Mosaic  in  origin  ? 


IX. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS.* 

EDWARD  REUSS  is  the  chief  who  has  given  direction 
and  character  to  this  stadium  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  As 
early  as  1833  f  he  maintained  that  the  priest-code  of  the 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  was  subsequent  to  the 
Deuteronomic  code.  This  came  to  him,  he  says,  as  an 
intuition  in  his  Biblical  studies,  and  he  presented  it  to 
his  students  in  his  University  lectures  from  1834  on¬ 
ward.  In  1835  George  took  independently  a  similar 
position.^  Vatke  also,  in  1835,  reached  the  same  results 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy, 
taking  the  ground  that  the  religion  of  Israel  has  three 
stages  of  development,  and  that  the  simple  religion  of 
the  feeling  in  the  Prophets  and  Deuteronomy  precedes 
the  more  external  and  reflective  religion  of  the  mass  of 


*  For  the  history  of  this  Stadium  see  Wellhausen  in  Bleek’s  Euileitung ,  4th 
Aufl.,  p.  152  sq.  ;  Merx  in  Tuch’s  Com.  u.  d.  Genesis ,  p.  lxxviii.  sq.  ;  Duff, 
History  0/  Research  concerning  the  Structure  of  the  Old  Testament  Books  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Sacra ,  1880,  Oct.,  and  1882,  July  ;  Kayser,  Der  gegenwartige 
Stand  der  Pentateuchfrage  in  the  Jahrbilcher  f.  Prot.  Theologie ,  1881,  ii. ,  iii., 
and  iv.  ;  Gast,  Pentateuch-Criticism ,  its  History  a?id  Present  State ,  in  the 
Reformed  Quarterly  Review ,  July,  18S2. 

t  Article  Jude7ithum  in  Ersch  and  Gruber’s  Encyclop .,  ii.  Bd.  27,  p.  334. 
Hall.  Literaturzeitung ,  1838. 

X  Die  dlteren  judisch.  Feste  mit  einer  Kritik  der  Qesetzgebung  aes  Pent., 
1835. 

(90)  y 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS  91 

the  Pentateuch ;  and  that  Prophetism  and  Mosaism 
must,  for  the  most  part,  be  transposed.* * * § 

These  writers  did  not  receive  much  attention.  Their 
positions  were  too  theoretical  and  without  a  sufficient 
support  in  the  details  of  practical  exegesis  to  gain  ac¬ 
ceptance. 

In  1862  J.  Popper)*  took  the  position  that  the  de¬ 
scription  of  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle,  Ex.  xxxv.-xl., 
and  the  consecration  of  the  priests,  Lev.  vii.-ix.,  were 
later  than  the  directions  respecting  them  both  in  Ex. 
xxv.-xxxi.,  and  contended  that  they  received  their 
present  form  some  time  after  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

Reuss  continued  to  work  at  his  theory  in  his  Univer¬ 
sity  lectures,  and  it  was  through  his  pupils  that  in  recent 
times  it  has  won  its  way  to  so  wide  an  acceptance.  The 
first  of  these  was  Heinrich  Graf,  who,  in  18664  presented 
strong  arguments  for  the  priority  of  Deuteronomy  to 
the  priest-code  of  Lev.  xviii.-xxiii.,  xxv.,  xxvi.,  Ex. 
xxxi.,  holding  that  the  latter  was  from  the  prophet 
Ezekiel,  and  that  in  the  time  of  Ezra  other  legislation  was 
was  added,  e.g.  Ex.  xii.  1-28,43-51,  xxv.-xxxi.,  xxxv.-xl.; 
Lev.  i.-xvi.,  xxiv.  10-23  ;  Num.  i.  48-x.  28,  xv.-xix., 
xxviii.-xxxi.,  xxxv.  16-xxxvi.  13,  and  that  the  last  addi¬ 
tions  were  made  soon  after  Ezra.  Graf  still  held  to  the 
priority  of  the  Elohistic  narrative.  This  inconsistency 
was  exposed  by  Riehm  and  Noldeke,  so  that  Graf  was 
forced  to  make  the  Elohistic  narrative  post-exilic  also.§ 
Meanwhile  the  English  world  had  been  stirred  by  the 


*  Biblische  Theologie ,  1835,  i.  1,  p.  641  sq. 

t  Biblische  Bericht  iiber  die  Sti/tshiitte. 

X  Merx,  Archiv ,  i.,  pp.  68-106,  208-236  ;  Die  geschichtliche  Bucher  des  Alt. 
Test. 

§  Studien  Krit .,  1868,  p.  372  ;  Merx,  Archiv ,  i.,  466-477.  Reuss  also  at 

this  time  held  the  same  position. 


92 


THE  ITEXATEUCH 


attacks  of  Bishop  Colenso  on  the  historical  character  of 
the  Pentateuch  and  book  of  Joshua,  and  in  the  Essays 
and  Reviews  by  a  number  of  scholars  representing  free 
thought.*  These  writers  fell  back  on  the  older  deistic 
objections  to  the  Pentateuch  as  history ,  and  as  contain¬ 
ing  a  supernatural  religion,  and  mingled  therewith  a 
reproduction  of  German  thought,  chiefly  through  Bun¬ 
sen.  They  magnified  the  discrepancies  in  the  narratives 
and  legislation,  and  attacked  the  supernatural  element, 
but  added  nothing  to  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Script¬ 
ures.  So  far  as  they  took  position  on  this  subject  they 
fell  into  line  with  the  more  radical  element  of  the  school 
of  De  Wette.  They  called -the  attention  of  British  and 
American  scholars  away  from  the  literary  study  of  the 
Bible  and  the  true  work  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  to  a 
defence  of  the  supernatural  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible.  They  were  attacked  by  various  divines  in  Great 
Britain  and  America,  and  their  influence  overcome  for 
the  time.f 

The  work  of  Colenso,  however,  made  a  great  im¬ 
pression  upon  the  Dutch  scholar  Kuenen,  who  had 
already  been  advancing  under  the  influence  chiefly  of 
Popper  and  Graf,  to  the  most  radical  positions.^  He 

*  The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  foshua  critically  examined,  Part  i.-vii., 
1862-79  5  Recent  Inquiries  in  Theology  by  eminent  English  Churchmen,  being 
Essays  and  Reviews,  4th  Am.  edition  from  2d  London,  1862. 

t  Among  these  we  may  mention  the  authors  of  Aids  to  Faith,  being  a  reply 
to  “  Essays  and  Reviews,”  American  edition  1862  ;  W.  H.  Green,  The  Penta¬ 
teuch  vindicated  from  the  Aspersions  of  Bishop  Colenso,  N.  Y.,  1863. 

t  In  his  Historisch-kritisch  Onderzoek ,  Leiden,  1861-5,  p.  165  f.,  194  f.,  he 
had  taken  a  similar  position  to  Graf,  that  the  legislation  in  the  Elohistic  docu¬ 
ment  was  composed  of  laws  of  various  dates  arising  out  of  the  priestly  circle,  the 
last  editing  of  them  being  later  than  the  Deuteronomist,  so  that  the  Redactor  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  a  priest.  But  subsequent  investigations  led  him  further. 
His  later  positions  are  represented  in  his  Godsdienst  van  Israel,  1869-70,  the 
English  edition,  Religion  of  Israel,  1874;  De  vijf  Boeken  van  Mazes,  1872; 
De  Profeten  en  de  profetie  onder  Israel,  1875,  translated  into  English,  The 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS 


93 


took  the  ground  that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  a  purely 
natural  religion,  developing  like  all  other  religions  in 
various  stages  from  the  grossest  polytheism  and  idolatry 
to  the  exalted  spiritual  conceptions  of  the  prophets. 
He  rejects  the  historical  character  of  the  Hexateuch, 
and  regards  it  as  composed  of  ancient  but  unreliable 
legends  and  myths,  the  legislation  representing  various 
stages,  the  earliest  in  the  period  of  the  kings.  The 
Deuteronomic  code  is  a  programme  of  the  Mosaic  party 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  the  priest-code  the  programme  of 
the  hierarchy  at  the  restoration  under  Ezra.  He  is  un¬ 
willing  to  ascribe  to  Moses  more  than  a  fragment  of  the 
decalogue.  He  finds  three  forms  of  worship,  that  of  the 
people,  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  law,  the  later  devel¬ 
oping  out  the  earlier. 

Meanwhile  the  new  theory  found  a  supporter  in  Eng¬ 
land  in  Dr.  Kalisch,  in  1867,  who,  influenced  in  part  by 
Vatke  and  Kuenen,  but  chiefly  by  George,  in  a  series  of 
valuable  excursus,  traces  the  development  of  the  various 
forms  of  legislation,  and  reaches  the  conclusion  that  the 
priestly  requirements  of  Leviticus  are  post-exilic.* * 

The  views  of  Reuss,  in  1869,  were  advocated  by 
Duhm,f  and  especially  in  1874,  by  Kayser,^  who  under¬ 
took  a  most  careful  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  with 


Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  1877,  and  numerous  articles  in  Theologisch 
Tijdschrift,  since  that  time,  and  last  of  all  Hibbert  Lectures,  National  Relig¬ 
ions  and  Universal  Religions ,  1882.  Kuenen’s  views  are  presented  by  Oort  in  a 
popular  form  in  the  Bible  for  Learners,  3  vols.,  1880.  His  final  opinion  is 
given  in  his  Historisch-kritisch  Onderzoek,  2de  Uitgave,  1887-1889. 

*  In  his  Commentary  on  Exodus,  1855,  Dr.  Kalisch  is  inclined  to  defend  the 
traditional  view  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  his  Com.  on  Genesis, 
1858,  he  is  concerned  only  with  the  geographical  and  other  scientific  and  his¬ 
torical  difficulties.  But  in  his  Com.  on  Leviticus,  Part  i.,  1867,  Part  ii.,  1872, 
he  advances  to  the  most  radical  positions, 
t  Theologie  der  Propheten. 

$  Vorexilische  Buck  der  Urgeschichte. 


94 


THE  HEXATEUOH 


reference  to  the  theory,  and  gave  it  much  needed  sup¬ 
port  from  the  literary  side.  Still  later,  Wellhausen,* 
in  1876-7,  gave  a  masterly  analysis  of  the  literary  feat¬ 
ures  of  the  entire  Hexateuch,  which  commanded  the  at¬ 
tention  of  all  Old  Testament  scholars,  and  then,  in  1878, 
carried  the  same  method  of  analysis  into  the  entire 
legislation,  combining  the  philosophical  method  of 
Vatke  with  the  exegetical  of  Reuss.  These  works  at 
once  won  over  a  large  number  of  prominent  scholars  to 
his  position,  such  as  Hermann  Schultz,  Kautzsch, 
Smend,  Stade,  Konig,  Gie-sebrecht,  Siegfried,  and  others 
in  Germany;  Lenormant  and  Vernes,  in  France;  W. 
Robertson  Smith,  Samuel  Sharp,  C.  H.  Toy,  and  others 
in  Great  Britain  and  America.f  Wellhausen,  like 
Kuenen,  attacks  the  historical  character  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  denies  the  supernatural  element,  and  reconstructs 
in  the  most  arbitrary  manner — but  these  features  are 
personal,  and  have  no  necessary  connection  with  his 
critical  analysis  of  the  literary  documents  and  legisla¬ 
tion  of  the  Pentateuch,  so  that  men  of  every  shade  of 
opinion  with  regard  to  the  supernatural  and  to  evangel¬ 
ical  religion  may  be  found  among  the  advocates  of  the 
theory. 


*  Jahr.  f.  Deutsche  Theologie ,  1876,  pp.  392-450,  531-602,  1877,  p.  407-409 ; 
Geschichte  Israels ,  i.,  1878. 

t  Schultz,  Alttestamentliche  Theologie ,  ii.  Auf.,  1878;  Kautzsch,  Theo.  Lite- 
ratur  Zeitung ,  1879  (2)  5  Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel ;  Smend,  Der 
Prophet  Ezekiel ,  1880;  Konig,  Der  Offenbarungsbegr  iff  des  Alt.  Test.,  1882  ; 
Siegfried  in  Punjer’s  Theo.  Jahresbericht ,  1882  ;  Giesebrecht,  Der  Sprachge- 
brauch  des  Hexateuchische?i  Elchisten  in  Zeit.  f.  d.  Alt-test.  Wissenscha/t , 
1881-2 ;  Lenormant,  Beginnings  of  History ,  edited  by  Prof.  Brown,  1882  ; 
Maurice  Vernes  in  Lichtenberger’s  Enyclopedia ,  art.  Pentateuque ,  x.,  p.  447  ; 
W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church ,  1881  ;  The 
Prophets  of  Israel,  18S2  ;  Sam.  Sharp,  History  of  the  Hebrew  Nation,  4th  Edit., 
1882  ;  C.  H.  Toy,  Babylonian  Element  in  Ezekiel,  in  Joicrnal  of  the  Society  of 
Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis,  1882,  and  numerous  others. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS 


95 


At  last  the  veteran  scholar,  Edward  Reuss  himself, 
sums  up  the  results  of  his  pupils’  work  as  well  as  his 
own  further  studies  in  1879  a°d  1881.*  Reuss  ascribes 
to  Moses  the  Decalogue  stript  of  its  present  para¬ 
phrase.  The  poetic  pieces  Gen.  xlix. ;  Ex.  xv. ;  Num. 
xxiii.-iv.,  the  book  of  the  wars  of  Jehovah,  and  the 
book  of  Jasher,  belong  to  the  northern  kingdom  after 
their  separation  from  Judah.  The  book  of  the  Cove¬ 
nant  was  written  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat.  The  Je- 
hovist  wrote  the  second  integral  part  of  our  Pentateuch 
in  the  second  half  of  the  ninth  century,  and  this  was 
followed  by  Deut.  xxxiii.,  and  sundry  legends  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  race  preserved  in  our  Genesis.  Deut. 
xxxii.  next  appeared.  Under  Josiah  the  Deuteronomist 
composed  the  third  great  section  of  our  Pentateuch, 
and  was  followed  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Joshua. 
After  the  Restoration,  the  law  book  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi. 
was  issued,  and  the  priest-code  with  the  fourth  great 
section  of  our  Pentateuch. 

It  is  evident  that  the  school  of  Reuss  propose  a  revo¬ 
lutionary  theory  of  the  Literature  and  Religion  of 
Israel.  How  shall  we  meet  it  but  on  the  same  evan¬ 
gelical  principles  with  which  all  other  theories  have  been 
met,  without  fear  and  without  prejudice,  in  the  honest 
search  for  the  real  truth  and  facts  of  the  case  ?  In  a 
critical  examination  of  this  theory,  it  is  important  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  the  essential  features  from  the  accidental.  We 
must  distinguish  between  the  Rationalism  and  unbelief 
that  characterize  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and  Reuss,  which 
are  not  essential  to  the  theory  itself,  and  such  supporters 
of  the  theory  as  Konig  in  Germany,  Lenormant  in 


*  L'Histoire  Saint e  et  la  Loi ,  1879 ;  Geschichte  der  Heiligen  Schr i/ten 
Alien  Testaments ,  1881. 


96 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


France,  Robertson  Smith  in  Scotland,  and  C.  H.Toy  in 
this  country.*  We  have  still  further  here,  as  through¬ 
out  our  previous  investigation,  to  distinguish  between 
the  theory  and  the  new  facts  which  have  been  brought 
to  light  for  which  this  theory  proposes  to  account  better 
than  any  previous  ones. 

The  facts  are  these :  (i).  Our  Pentateuchal  legisla¬ 

tion  is  composed  of  several  codes,  which  show  through¬ 
out  variation  from  one  another.  (2).  If  we  take  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  as  a  unit  at  the  basis  of  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Israel,  we  find  a  discrepancy  between  it  and  the 
History  and  the  Literature  of  the  nation  prior  to  the 
exile  in  these  two  particulars  :  (a).  A  silence  in  the  his¬ 

torical,  prophetical,  poetical,  and  ethical  writings  as  to 
many  of  its  chief  institutions  ;  (< b ).  The  infraction  of  this 
legislation  by  the  leaders  of  the  nation,  throughout  the 
history  in  unconscious  innocence,  and  unrebuked.  (3). 
We  can  trace  a  development  in  the  religion  of  Israel 
from  the  conquest  to  the  exile  in  four  stages  correspond¬ 
ing  in  a  most  remarkable  manner  to  the  variations  be¬ 
tween  the  codes.  (4).  The  books  of  Kings  and  Chroni¬ 
cles  in  their  representation  of  the  history  of  Israel  regard 
it,  the  former  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic  code,  the  latter  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  priest- 
code.  (5).  The  prophet  Ezekiel  presents  us  a  detailed 
representation  of  institutions  which  seem  intermediate 
between  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  the  priest-code. 

The  theory  of  the  school  of  Reuss  attempts  to  account 
(1)  for  the  variation  of  the  codes  by  three  different  legis¬ 
lations  at  widely  different  periods  of  time,  e.g.,  in  the 


*  Konig,  Der  O ffenbarun gsbegriff,  ii. ,  p.  333  sq.  ;  Lenormant,  Beginnings 
of  History ,  p.  x.  sq . ;  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Churchy  Chap.  I.  ;  C.  H.  Toy,  in  The  Journal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Liter¬ 
ature  and  Exegesis ,  1882,  p.  66  ;  Judaism  and  Christianity ,  p.  70,  1890. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS 


97 


reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  of  Josiah,  and  at  the  Restoration ; 
(2)  for  the  silence  and  the  infraction,  the  discrepancy 
between  the  Pentateuchal  legislation,  and  the  history 
and  the  literature,  by  the  non-existence  of  the  legislation 
in  those  times  of  silence  and  infraction ;  (3)  for  the 
development  of  the  religion  of  Israel  in  accordance  with 
these  codes  by  the  representation  that  the  origin  of  these 
codes  corresponds  with  that  development ;  (4)  for  the 
difference  in  point  of  view  of  the  authors  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles,  on  the  ground  that  the  author  of  Kings  knew 
only  of  Deuteronomy,  while  the  author  of  Chronicles  was 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  the  new  priest-code  ;  (5)  for  the 
peculiar  position  of  Ezekiel’s  legislation  by  the  state¬ 
ment,  that  his  legislation  was  in  fact  an  advance  beyond 
the  Deuteronomic  code,  and  a  preparation  for  the  priest- 
code,  which  was  post-exilic.  No  one  can  examine  this 
theory  in  view  of  the  facts  which  it  seeks  to  explain  with¬ 
out  admitting  at  once  its  simplicity  ;  its  correspondence 
with  the  law  of  the  development  of  other  religions;  its 
apparent  harmony  with  these  facts,  and  its  removal  of 
not  a  few  difficulties.  Hence  its  attractiveness  and 
power  over  against  the  prevalent  theory  which  was  not 
constructed  to  account  for  these  facts,  and  which  has 
been  too  often  defended  by  special  pleading. 

There  are  various  ways  of  dealing  with  this  radical 
and  revolutionary  theory.  We  might  attempt  to  deny 
these  facts  or  explain  them  away.  Such  a  course  is  but 
kicking  against  the  pricks.  It  does  not  satisfy  inquirers, 
but  rather  destroys  the  confidence  of  all  earnest  seekers 
after  the  truth.  We  might  yield  to  the  attractiveness 
of  the  theory,  and  go  with  the  tide  of  Biblical  scholar¬ 
ship  which  has  set  so  strongly  in  that  direction.  We 
might  shut  our  eyes  to  the  whole  matter,  go  to 
work  in  other  fields,  attend  to  the  practical  duties 


98 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


of  life,  and  leave  these  Pentateuchal  studies  to  others. 
Any  one  of  these  three  ways  would  be  easier  than  to 
look  the  facts  in  the  face,  and  inquire  whether  the  theory 
of  the  school  of  Reuss  accounts  for  them  in  whole  or  in 
part  or  at  all. 


X. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES. 

The  variation  in  the  several  codes,  Ex.  xx.-xxiv. 
Ex.  xxxiv.,  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  and  the  scattered  legis¬ 
lation  of  the  middle  books,  is  so  constant  that  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  explain  it  away.  These  variations  were 
already  noted  in  part  by  Calvin,  who  wrote  a  Harmony 
of  the  Legislation,  but  he  was  not  followed  by  later 
writers.  These  variations  were  more  closely  scrutinized 
by  Eichhorn,  and  he  explained  them  on  the  ground  that 
the  Deuteronomic  code  was  a  people  s  code,  the  Legisla¬ 
tion  of  the  middle  books  a  priests  code.* 

Another  important  difference  to  which  Riehm  calls 
attention  is  that  the  priest-code  seems  designed  for  a 
people  still  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  the  other  for  a 
people  already  dwelling  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  More¬ 
over,  the  Deuteronomic  code  is  connected  with  a  cove¬ 
nant  in  the  land  of  Moab,  the  covenant  code  with  a 
covenant  at  Horeb  (Deut.  xxix.  9-14).  The  priest-code 


*This  is  acknowledged  by  Riehm  :  “  For  all  the  Deuteronomic  laws  prescribe 
to  the  people  who  know  not  the  law,  what  to  do  and  leave  undone,  none  of  them 
define  the  duties  of  the  priests  and  Levites  who  knew  the  law.  .  .  .  The  first 
distinction  between  the  ancient  (Levitical)  and  Deuteronomic  legislation  is  ac¬ 
cordingly  this  :  that  the  one  will  give  a  complete  law-book  designed  for  all,  those 
knowing  the  law  and  those  ignorant  of  it,  the  other  designed  only  for  the  people 
who  knew  not  the  law.”  Gesetzgebung  Host's,  1854,  p.  11  sq. 


(99) 


100 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


is  given  as  the  words  of  Yahweh  revealed  to  Moses. 
In  the  Deuteronomic  code  Moses  comes  forward  as  a 
popular  orator  to  urge  the  people  to  the  observance  of 
the  laws  which  he  makes  known  as  the  prophet  of 
Yahweh. 

Thus  according  to  Eichhorn  and  Riehm  we  have  a 
difference  of  point  of  view  which  determines  the  structure 
and  the  character  of  these  codes  and  necessarily  produced 
a  variation  throughout.  To  this  discrimination  of  the 
Deuteronomic  and  priests’  codes  we  may  add  that  the 
two  codes,  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  differ  no  less  strik¬ 
ingly  from  them  both.  They  contain  brief,  terse, 
pregnant  sentences  of  command.  They  resemble  the 
decalogue  itself.  It  is  generally  agreed  among  Biblical 
scholars,  that  the  little  book  of  the  Covenant  is  also  a 
decalogue  (Ex.  xxxiv.),  and  not  a  few  find  that  the  larger 
book  of  the  Covenant  is  also  composed  of  a  series  of 
decalogues.*  To  this  opinion  we  subscribe  without 
hesitation,  and  find  in  it  an  evidence  that  this  legislation 
is  the  nearest  to  the  fundamental  Mosaic  legislation,  in 
accordance  with  the  explicit  statement  that  Moses  wrote 
it  in  a  book  of  the  Covenant.  We  thus  have  a  third 
and  fourth  earlier  points  of  view.  These  four  codes 
therefore  present  us  the  judicial,  the  prophetical,  and  the 
priestly  points  of  view,  which  determine  the  variation  in 
aim,  form,  structure,  and  character  of  the  three  codes. 
This  has  been  entirely  neglected  by  the  advocates  of  the 
traditional  theory.  This  has  also  been  ignored  to  a  great 
extent  by  the  advocates  of  the  theories  of  DeJWette  and 
Reuss,  who  have  sought  to  explain  these  variations  by 
a  development  extending  over  a  wide  period  of  time. 

*  Bertheau,  Die  sieben  Gruppen  Jlf osazsc/ter  Ge^etze,  1840,  even  finds  such 
decalogues  in  the  middle  books,  but  does  not  make  it  evident  save  in  the  two 
books  of  the  Covenant, 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES 


101 


The  evangelical  men  of  our  time  naturally  feel  the  force 
of  the  philosophical  theory  of  development,  and  other 
things  being  equal,  will  accept  it  to  account  for  the 
phenomena,  if  they  can  do  it  without  peril  to  their  faith. 
We  shall  look  at  the  differences  and  inquire  how  they 
may  be  harmonized. 

(1) .  When  we  compare  the  decalogue  of  the  covenant 
code  of  J,  with  the  corresponding  parts  of  the  covenant 
code  of  E,  and  then  the  laws  corresponding  to  this 
decalogue  in  the  codes  of  D,  H,  and  P;  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  this  decalogue  in  intension  and  extension  is  so 
clear  in  the  constant  order  J,  D,  H,  P,  that  it  seems 
impossible  to  dispute  it.* 

(2) .  When  now  we  take  the  decalogues  of  the  covenant 
code  of  E,  so  far  as  they  have  not  yet  been  used  in  the 
previous  study,  and  trace  them  in  their  corresponding 
laws  through  the  codes  D,  H,  P,  it  becomes  clear  that 
the  laws  in  the  covenant  code  of  E  “  form  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation.’^ 

(3) .  There  is  also  an  apparent  development  between 
the  codes  of  D  and  H,  which  may  be  seen  in  the  laws 
common  to  these  codes.;): 

(4) .  There  is  an  evident  development  in  the  laws 
respecting  altars. 

JE  narrate  that  altars  were  built  by  Noah  after  leav¬ 
ing  the  ark  Gn.  viii.  20  ;  by  Abraham  at  Shechem  Gn. 
xii.  7,  Bethel  Gn.  xii.  8,  Hebron  Gn.  xiii.  18,  Mt.  Moriah 
Gn.  xxii.  9  ;  by  Isaac  at  Beersheba  Gn.  xxvi.  25  ;  by  Jacob 
at  Shechem  Gn.  xxxiii.  20, §  at  Bethel  Gn.  xxxv.  7 ;  by 
Moses  at  Rephidim  Ex.  xvii.  15,  Horeb  Ex.  xxiv.  4;  by 

*  See  Appendix  V.  t  Driver  /.  c.  p.  70.  See  Appendix  VI. 

X  See  Appendix  VII. 

§  Yet  this  perhaps  a  mistake  for  being  obj.  of  not  elsewhere 

with  also  Dillmann. 


102 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Balak  at  Bamoth  Baal,  Pisgah  &  Peor  Nu.  xxiii.  I,  14, 
29;  by  Joshua  on  Mt.  Ebal  Jos.  viii.  30;  the  prophetic 
histories  narrate  that  altars  were  built  by  Gideon  at 
Ophra  Ju.  vi.  24;  by  a  man  of  God  at  Bethel  Ju.  xxi.  4 ; 
by  Samuel  at  Ramah  1  S.  vii.  17  ;  by  Saul  after  Mich- 
mash  1  S.  xiv.  35  ;  by  David  on  the  threshing  floor  of 
Oman  2  S.  xxiv.  25  =  1  Ch.  xxi.  18,  xxii.  1  ;  that  Sol¬ 
omon  sacrificed  on  the  altar  at  Gibeon  1  K.  iii.  4  and 
built  altars  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  1  K.  vi.  20,  viii. 
64;  that  Jeroboam  built  an  altar  at  Bethel  1  K.  xii.  32 
(which  was  destroyed  by  Josiah  2  K.  xxiii.  15);  and 
that  Elijah  repaired  an  ancient  altar  on  Carmel  I  K. 
xviii.  30.  A11  altar  in  Egypt  is  predicted  Is.  xix.  19. 

All  this  accords  with  the  law  of  the  Covenant  code  Ex. 
xx.  24-26  which  recognizes  a  plurality  of  altars  and  pre¬ 
scribes  that  they  shall  be  built  of  soil  or  unhewn  stones, 
and  without  steps  ;  so  of  stones  Dt.  xxvii.  6,  of  whole  stones 
Jos.  viii.  31  and  of  twelve  stones  1  K.  xviii.  30,  32,  cf.  Is. 
xxvii.  9.  The  altar  was  also  a  place  of  refuge  Ex.  xxi.  14 
(JE)  1  K.  i.  50,  51,  ii.  28.  (2).  D  prescribes  one  central 

altar  Dt.  xii.  27,  but  no  attempt  to  enforce  this  law  ap¬ 
pears  until  Josiah  who  destroys  all  other  altars  besides 
the  one  in  Jerusalem  2  K.  xxiii.  8-20.  (3).  P  limits 

sacrifices  to  the  altars  of  the  tabernacle.  A  great  altar 
was  built  East  of  the  Jordan,  but  it  was  according  to  P 
only  as  an  after  the  pattern  of  the  altar  before  the 

Tabernacle  Jos.  xxii.  10-34.  P  describes  two  altars:  a. 
the  altar  of  burnt  offering  Ex.  xxx.  28,  xxxi.  9,  xxxv.  16, 
xxxviii.  1,  xl.  6,  10,  29,  Lv.  iv.  7,  10,  25,  25,  30,  34= 
brazen  altar  Ex.  xxxviii.  30,  xxxix.  39,  made  of  acacia 
wood  plated  with  brass  5x5x3  cubits  having  four  horns 
and  a  network  of  brass,  upon  which  all  sacrifices  by  fire 
were  made  Ex.  xxvii.  1-8,  xxxviii.  1-7;  b.  altar  for  the 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES 


103 


burning  of  incense,  made  of  acacia  wood  plated  with 
gold  ixix2  cubits,  with  four  horns  and  a  crown  of  gold, 
Ex.  xxx.  i-6=the  altar  of  incense  Ex.  xxx.  27,  xxxi.  8, 
xxxv.  15,  xxxvii.  25  =  the  altar  of  gold  Ex.  xxxix.  38, 
xl.  5,  26,  Nu.  iv.  n=the  altar  of  sweet  incense  Lv. 
iv.  7  ;  these  altars  are  known  elsewhere  only  in  Chr.;  1 
Ch.  vi.  34,  xvi.  40,  xxi.  29;  2  Ch.  i.  5,  6. 

(5).  There  is  also  a  development  of  the  sacred  tent.  This 
is  named,  The  tent  of  meeting  of  God  with  his  people 
(tent  of  congregation  or  assembly  Ges.  M.V.  al.).  Accord¬ 
ing  to  E,  Moses  so  called  the  tent  which  he  used  to  pitch 
without  the  camp,  afar  off,  into  which  he  used  to  enter, 
and  where  God  spake  with  him  face  to  face,  Ex.  xxxiii. 
7— *1 1,  Nu.  xii.  5,  10,  Dt.  xxxi.  14,  15.  J  seems  to  have 
some  conception  of  a  tent  of  meeting  outside  the  camp, 
Nu.  xi.  24,  26  ;  D  has  no  allusion  to  such  a  tent ;  P  men¬ 
tions  it  1 3 1  t.  as  “  the  tent  of  meeting  ”;  19 1.  as  “  the  tent  ” 
(cf.  Ez.  xli.  1)  and  tent  of  the  testimony  Nu.  ix.  15,  xvii.  22, 
23,  xviii.  2  (as  containing  ark  and  tables  of  the  testimony) 
cf.  2  Ch.  xxiv.  6,  this  tent  sometimes  confounded  with  the 
tabernacle,  but  distinguished  in  “tabernacle  of  the  tent 
of  meeting”  Ex.  xxxix.  32,  xl.  2,  6,  29,  cf.  1  Ch.  vi.  17 ; 
“the  tabernacle  and  the  tent  ”  Nu.  iii.  25  ;  “the  taber¬ 
nacle  and  the  tent”  Ex.  xxxv.  11.  The  tent  was  of  three 
layers  of  skins,  goatskins,  ramskins,  and  tachash  skins, 
each  layer  of  eleven  pieces  stretched  in  the  form  of  a  tent, 
covering  and  protecting  the  tabernacle,  which  was  in  the 
form  of  a  parallelopip.  (Ex.  xxvi.).  A  tent  of  meeting 
was  at  Shilo  1  Sam.  ii.  22  (omitted  in  LXX.,  Vulg.)  cf.  Ps. 
lxxviii.  60,  called  “  tent  of  J oseph”  v.  67.  The  tent  of  meet¬ 
ing  was  later  at  Gibeon  2  Ch.  i.  3, 6,  13  ;  courses  of  ministry 
were  arranged  for  service  at  the  “  tent  of  meeting  ”  1  Ch. 
vi.  17,  xxiii.  32,  cf.  1  Ch.  ix.  19  (the  tent)  v.  2  r,  23  “  house 
of  the  tent  ”;  David  erected  a  tent  for  ark  on  Mount 


104 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Zion  2  Sam.  vi.  17,  I  Ch.  xv.  I,  xvi.  I,  2  Ch.  i.  4;  Joab 
fled  for  refuge  to  the  tent  of  Yahvveh  1  K.  ii.  28-30; 
sacred  oil  was  brought  from  the  tent  I  K.  i.  39 ;  the  tent 
of  meeting  was  taken  up  into  temple  1  K  viii.  4=2  Ch.  v. 
5  ;  Yahweh  had  not  previously  dwelt  in  a  house,  but  had 
gone  from  tent  to  tent ,  from  one  to  another,  1  Ch.  xvii.  5, 
cf.  2  Sam.  vii.  6. 

(6) .  There  is  development  in  the  conception  of  the 
priesthood.  In  the  blessing  of  Moses  the  tribe  of  Levi 
was  chosen  to  bear  the  Urim  and  Thummin,  to  teach  Is¬ 
rael,  to  burn  incense  and  sacrifice.  (Dt.  xxxiii.  8-1 1.) 
According  to  E,  in  the  covenant  of  Horeb,  Israel  became  a 
kingdom  of  priests.  (Ex.  xix.  5,  6.)  At  the  covenant  sac¬ 
rifice  Moses  selected  young  men  to  assist  him,  showing 
that  there  were  no  official  priests  at  that  time.  (Ex.  xxiv. 
5.)  But  priests  bore  the  ark  and  the  sacred  trumpets 
at  Jericho.  (Josh.  iv.  9;  vi.  4.)  According  to  J,  priests 
draw  near  to  Yahweh  at  Sinai  (Ex.  xix.  22),  showing  a 
priesthood  at  that  date,  an  important  difference  of  con¬ 
ception  from  E.  At  the  conquest  priests  bear  the  ark. 
(Jos.  iii.  6;  iv.  3.)  According  to  D,  the  tribe  of  Levi 
was  separated  to  be  the  priestly  tribe  to  bear  the  ark,  to 
stand  before  Yahweh,  to  minister  in  his  name,  and  to 
bless  the  people.  (Dt.  x.  8,  9 ;  xxxi.  9;  Jos.  iii.  3;  vi. 
6;  xiii.  33  ;  xviii.  7.)  P  has  an  entirely  different  legisla¬ 
tion  respecting  the  priesthood.  It  gives  an  account  of 
the  consecration  and  ordination  of  the  Levites  as  priests, 
in  substitution  for  the  first-born  sons,  and  then  of  the 
consecration  of  an  Aaronic  priesthood ;  and  of  a  high 
priesthood,  each  of  the  three  grades  with  its  distinguish¬ 
ing  dress,  and  correspondingly  discriminated  duties. 

(7) .  The  sacrificial  system  shows  a  development  in  sev¬ 
eral  stages.  JE  in  their  codes  and  histories  frequently 
use  the  whole  burnt-offering,  and  the  peace-offering,  the 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES 


105 


fundamental  sacrifices,  also  the  first  fruits  and  firstlings.  E 
gives  an  account  of  the  national  sacrifice  at  the  ratification 
of  the  covenant  at  Horeb  (Ex.  xxiv.),  and  mentions  the 
drink-offering  of  Jacob.  (Gen.  xxxv.  14.)  J  distinguishes 
between  the  clean  and  the  unclean  of  animals  as  dating 
from  the  sacrifice  of  Noah,  uses  Minchah  as  a  general 
name  for  both  the  sacrifice  of  sheep  and  fruit  in  the 
story  of  Cain  and  Abel,  but  in  the  covenant  code  as  a 
name  for  the  offering  of  unleavened  bread.  J  also  gives 
a  law  for  the  passover  victim  which  seems  unknown  to  E. 
D  enlarges  the  scope  of  the  offerings  mentioned  in  J  E. 
It  uses  the  whole  burnt-offering,  peace-offerings  and 
firstlings  of  J  E  and  the  passover  victim  of  J.  But  in 
addition  it  uses  the  term  “  offerings  of  Yahweh  made 
by  fire,”  and  gives  the  votive  offerings,  free-will  offerings 
and  heave-offerings.  It  also  prohibits  the  offering  of 
children  in  whole  burnt-offering,  a  prohibition  apparently 
unknown  to  J  E  and  the  earlier  history. 

P  now  gives  an  elaborate  system  of  sacrifices  and  pre¬ 
cise  rules  for  their  observance.  All  the  terms  of  the 
offerings  of  JED  appear,  and  many  new  ones.  (1)  ‘p-ip 
is  commonly  employed  for  offerings  of  material  things. 
(2).  The  sin-offering  is  in  three  stages  as  it  purifies  the 
three  altars  in  its  gradations  of  access  to  the  divine  pres¬ 
ence.  (3).  The  trespass-offering  is  in  three  varieties  for 
the  ordinary  person,  the  Nazarite,  and  the  leper.  (4). 
The  development  of  the  peace-offerings  into  the  votive 
offering,  the  free-will  offering,  the  thank-offering,  is  evi¬ 
dent  as  well  as  the  ordinary  peace-offering.  (5).  The  spec¬ 
ial  sacrifice  of  the  ram  of  consecration  at  the  installation 
of  the  priesthood  is  mentioned.  These  sacrifices,  peculiar 
to  the  priest-code,  involve  an  extensive  list  of  phrases 
which  are  unknown  to  the  other  codes.* 


*  e.  g.  NtSn  is  used  in  Gen.  xxxi.  39  (E),  in  the  primitive  meaning  of  “bear 


106 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


(8) .  According  to  the  covenant  code  the  men  of  Israel 
are  holy  and  are  not  to  eat  of  flesh  torn  off  beasts  in  the 
field,  they  are  to  cast  it  to  the  dogs.  (Ex.  xxii.  31.)  In 
D  an  animal  that  died  of  itself  might  be  given  to  the 
stranger  to  eat,  and  sold  to  the  foreigners.  (Dt.  xiv.  21.) 
In  H  these  carcasses  could  not  be  eaten  by  home- 
born  or  stranger.  (Lev.  xvii.  15,  16.)  In  P  the  distinc-’ 
tion  between  home-born  and  stranger  has  passed  away, 
and  the  prohibition  is  universal.  (Lev.  xi.  39,  40.)  Sev¬ 
eral  generations  are  necessary  to  account  for  such  a 
series  of  modifications  of  the  same  law.  This  is  only  an 
incident  of  the  development  of  the  legislation  under  the 
head  of  Purifications.  The  Deuteronomic  code  forbids 
to  cut  oneself,  distinguishes  the  clean  from  the  unclean 
animals  (xiv.  3-21),  and  p’rescribes  washing  with  water 
for  uncleanness  (xxiii.  10  sq.).  The  priest-code  gives  an 
extended  series  of  purifications  in  the  varied  use  of  pure 
water,  and  by  the  use  of  ashes  of  the  red  heifer  (Lev. 
xii.,  xv.,  Num.  xix.),  and  of  various  ingredients  in  the 
healing  of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiii.-xiv.). 

(9) .  The  Feasts.  The  Covenant-code  ordains  the  Sab¬ 
bath,  feasts  of  unleavened  bread,  harvest  and  ingather¬ 
ings,  and  the  seventh  year.  (Ex.  xxiii.  10-17.)  The 
Deuteronomic  code  mentions  the  Passover,  feast  of  un¬ 
leavened  bread,  feast  of  weeks,  feast  of  tabernacles,  and 
year  of  release.  (Deut.  xv.,  xvi.)  The  priest-code  gives 
a  complete  cycle  of  feasts  (Lev.  xxiii.;  Num.  xxviii.), 
new  moons,  Sabbaths,  the  seven  great  Sabbaths,  Pass- 
over  and  unleavened  bread,  day  of  first  fruits,  feast  of 

loss,”  but  in  P  it  means  only  to  make  a  sin-offering  or  to  purify  from  sin  or  un¬ 
cleanness.  It  is  characteristic  of  H  and  P  that  defines  J"QT  in  the  con¬ 

struct  singular  or  plural  in  a  number  of  phrases  used  with  great  frequency.  In  P 
it  is  distinguished  from  rOU  and  but  not  from  iTTiri,  and  therefore  prob¬ 

ably  is  interchangeable  with  min . 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES 


107 


trumpets,  day  of  atonement,  tabernacles,  the  seventh 
year’s  feast,  the  year  of  Jubilee, — a  most  artistic  system.* 
It  will  be  observed  that  these  variations  are  in  the 
chief  features  of  the  ceremonial  system.  They  present 
the  appearance  of  development  from  the  more  simple 
to  the  complex,  and  in  the  order,  Covenant  codes,  Deu- 
teronomic  code,  code  of  Holiness,  and  priest-code.  The 
traditional  theory  is  certainly  at  fault  here  in  regarding 
the  Deuteronomic  legislation  as  secondary  over  against 
the  priest-code  as  primary.  The  Deuteronomic  code  is 
secondary  to  the  Covenant  codes,  but  not  to  the  priest- 
code.  This  fault  of  the  traditional  theory  had  not  been 
overcome  by  the  theories  of  Eichhorn,  Geddes  or  De 
Wette.  Here  is  an  advantage  of  Reuss’  theory  over 
all  previous  ones.  We  must  admit  the  order  of  develop¬ 
ment.  A  code  for  the  elders  and  judges  of  tribes  or 
clans  in  their  various  localities,  a  code  for  the  instruction 
of  the  nation  as  a  whole  in  rhetorical  and  popular  form, 
and  a  code  for  the  priests  from  the  holy  place  as  a 
centre,  in  the  nature  of  the  case  will  show  a  progress 
from  the  simple  to  the  more  and  more  complex  and 
elaborate  in  matters  of  ritualistic  observance.  The 
Covenant  code  of  E  is  a  series  of  decalogues  for  the 
elders  in  the  administration  of  justice  in  various 
localities.  It  is  based  on  the  covenant  at  Horeb 
and  lies  at  the  root  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation. 
It  is  claimed  that  Moses  wrote  such  a  book  of  the 
Covenant.  The  Deuteronomic  code  is  a  people’s  code 
in  a  prophetic  form  to  instruct  and  stimulate  the  people 
of  Yahweh  as  ■an  organic  whole.  It  is  based  on  the 
experience  of  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  it  looks 
forward  to  a  prolonged  occupation  of  the  promised 


*  See  Appendix  VI. 


108 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


land,  and  is  based  on  a  new  covenant  in  the  plains  of 
Moab.  We  would  expect  to  find  progress  and  develop¬ 
ment  here  especially  on  the  practical  side.  It  is  claimed 
that  Moses  gives  a  law  code  at  this  time ;  and  we  can 
see  no  sufficient  reasons  for  doubting  it.  The  priest- 
code  is  from  the  priestly  point  of  view  in  connection 
with  the  tabernacle  and  its  institutions.  It  will  neces¬ 
sarily  exhibit  progress  and  development  on  the  technical 
side  in  the  details  of  the  ritual.  This  code  is  scattered 
in  groups  in  the  middle  books,  and  broken  up  by  in¬ 
sertions  of  historical  incidents,  but  when  put  together 
exhibits  an  organic  whole,  a  unity  and  symmetry  which 
is  wonderful  in  connection  with  the  attention  given  to 
details.  This  code  is  represented  as  given  by  Yahweh 
to  Moses  or  Aaron,  or  both,  but  it  is  not  represented  as 
written  down  by  Moses  as  is  the  case  with  the  two 
other  codes.  It  claims  to  be  Mosaic  legislation,  but  if 
we  should  suppose  that  later  priests  gathered  the  de¬ 
tailed  laws  and  groups  of  laws  into  codes  at  any  times 
subsequent  to  the  conquest,  this  claim  would  be  satis¬ 
fied.  This  collection  of  laws  contains  an  earlier  separate 
code  called  the  code  of  Holiness.  It  may  also  contain 
other  such  codes  yet  to  be  determined  by  criticism,  all 
constituent  sources  of  the  present  priest-code  and  going 
back  through  several  codifications  to  primitive  times. 

There  are  several  obstacles  which  have  been  proposed 
to  the  composition  of  the  priestly  legislation  in  the  post- 
exilic  period:  (i).  The  language  of  the  Elohist  and  the 
priest-code  is  classic.  The  discussions  respecting  the 
language  of  the  Elohist  have  proved  marked  differences 
from  the  other  documents,  but  they  have  not  proved 
any  such  deflection  in  the  syntax  of  the  waw  consec.,  and 
the  multiplication  of  nouns  formed  by  affixes  as  charac¬ 
terize  Ezekiel.  And  yet  the  word-lists  show  closer  re- 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES 


109 


semblance  between  the  priestly  code  and  Ezekiel  than 
between  that  code  and  any  earlier  writer. 

(2) .  The  priest-code  is  a  unit  in  its  wonderful  variety 
of  detail.  Given  the  ark  of  the  covenant  as  the  throne 
of  Yahweh,  the  King  of  Israel,  the  holy  God,  and  all 
the  institutions,  and  the  ritual,  seem  to  be  the  most  ap¬ 
propriate  elaboration  of  that  one  idea.  They  are  wrapt 
up  in  the  idea  itself  as  a  germ.  Why  should  it  require 
centuries  for  the  development  of  the  germ  into  its  legiti¬ 
mate  flowers  and  fruit  ?  An  idea  like  that  would  be 
more  than  seed-corn  to  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  We 
would  expect  some  such  practical  development  as  we 
do  find  in  the  priest’s  code  at  the  time.  Such  a  specu¬ 
lative  development  is  possible.  But  is  it  so  probable 
as  a  practical  development,  finding  expression  in  appro¬ 
priate  legislation?  The  unity  may  come  from  the 
priestly  compiler  and  express  the  unification  of  historic 
experience. 

(3) .  The  priest-code  is  realistic,  and  its  realism  is  that 
of  the  wilderness,  of  the  wanderings  and  the  nomadic  life. 
This  is  so  inextricably  involved  with  the  ideal  in  all 
parts  of  the  legislation,  so  simple,  artless,  and  inartistic, 
that  it  seems  unlikely  that  it  should  be  pure  invention, 
or  the  elaboration  of  an  ideal  which  could  not  escape 
anachronisms  in  some  particulars.  But  if  the  funda¬ 
mental  legislation  is  Mosaic,  why  might  not  the  priestly 
compiler,  taking  his  stand  in  the  wilderness  of  the  wan¬ 
derings,  have  been  true  to  his  historic  and  ideal  stand¬ 
point  ?  And  then  there  are  apparently  anachronisms 
as  has  been  pointed  out  by  several  crities.* 


*  See  Westphal,  Les  Sources  des  Pentateuque ,  ii.  pp.  321  seq. 


XI. 

THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY. 

I. — Discrepancy  between  the  Codes  and  the  History. 

It  must  be  admitted  by  the  candid  investigator  of 
the  Scriptures  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  and  the  history  and  literature 
of  Israel  prior  to  the  exile.  It  extends  through  the 
most  important  laws  of  the  ritual.  It  is  two-fold  :  that 
of  silence  on  the  one  side,  and  that  of  unconscious  and 
uncondemned  violation  on  the  other.  In  the  period  of 
the  Judges  there  are  many  altars  besides  the  altar  at 
Shiloh,  where  the  ark  and  the  tent  of  meeting  were 
situated.  These  altars  were  erected  in  places  conse¬ 
crated  by  Theophanies  in  accordance  with  the  Covenant 
code  and  in  violation  of  the  Deuteronomic  code  and 
priests’  code.  The  sacrifices  were  offered  by  laymen, 
such  as  Joshua  and  Gideon  at  Ebal  (Jos.  viii.  30);  at 
Mispeh  in  Perea  (Judges  xi.  n);  at  Bochim  (Judges 
ii.  5);  at  Ophra  (vi.  24);  at  Mispeh  in  Benjamin  (xxi.  8); 
and  elsewhere  (Judges  xiii.  19).  This  is  a  violation  of 
the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code,  but  not  of  the 
covenant  code. 

Dr.  Green  explains  these  violations  thus  :  “  In  every 
such  instance  sacrifices  were  offered  on  the  spot  by  those 

to  whom  the  Lord  thus  appeared  ;  and  in  the  absence 
(no) 


1 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


111 


of  such  a  Theophany,  sacrifices  were  never  offered  except 
at  Shiloh  or  in  the  presence  of  the  ark  and  by  priests  of 
the  house  of  Aaron.”  This  explanation  does  not  satisfy 
us  for  these  reasons  :  (r)  These  transactions  are  no  more 
than  the  Covenant-code  requires.  (2)  They  indicate  a 
practice  identical  with  that  of  the  patriarchs.  The  Deu- 
teronomic  code  and  priest-code  required  a  change  in  the 
earlier  practice.  Why  were  these  two  great  codes  trans¬ 
gressed  by  the  judges  under  the  influence  of  the  divine 
Spirit?  (3)  The  ark  of  the  Covenant,  according  to  the 
priest-code,  was  the  permanent  place  of  divine  Theoph¬ 
any.  Why  was  this  forsaken  by  Yahweh  Himself  in 
violation  of  His  own  law,  and  why  did  He  encourage 
the  chiefs  of  the  nation  to  violate  the  law?  Why  did 
Yahweh  Himself  permit  His  one  altar  and  sanctuary 
and  the  legitimate  Aaronic  priesthood  to  be  so  neglected 
and  dishonored  ?  (4)  The  statement  that  the  sacrifices 

were  never  offered  except  at  Shiloh  or  in  the  presence  of 
the  ark  and  by  priests  of  the  house  of  Aaron,  except  at 
the  times  specified,  rests  upon  no  other  evidence  than 
silence,  which  may  count  equally  well  on  the  other  side, 
since  that  which  is  mentioned  as  having  been  done  sev¬ 
eral  times  may  be  presumed,  with  no  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  to  have  been  done  at  other  times.  Moreover, 
the  silence  of  the  history  as  to  any  national  habitual  wor¬ 
ship  at  Shiloh  as  the  one  only  legitimate  altar  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code,  seems 
rather  to  count  against  such  a  thing.  For  the  neglect  of 
the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  does  not  seem  from  the  narra¬ 
tives  extraordinary  or  abnormal. 

According  to  the  history  of  this  period  the  sacrifices 
are  peace-offerings  and  burnt-offerings  of  the  Covenant 
code,  but  no  offerings  peculiar  to  the  Deuteronomic 
code,  no  sin  and  trespass  offerings  of  the  priests’  code. 


112 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


There  are  simple  ceremonial  washings,  but  none  of  the 
peculiar  Levitical  purifications.  The  Passover  was  once 
kept  (Josh.  v.  io)  and  an  animal  feast  at  Shiloh  (Judges 
xxi.  19),  but  there  is  no  mention  of  any  of  the  feasts 
peculiar  to  the  priests’  code.  The  ark  of  the  Covenant, 
the  tent  of  meeting,  and  the  Nazarite  vow*  are  dif¬ 
ferent  from  these  things  as  presented  in  the  priest-code. 

In  the  time  of  Samuel  a  similar  state  of  affairs  is  dis¬ 
covered.  Sacrifices  are  offered  by  Samuel,  tribal  chiefs, 
and  Saul  at  various  places:  at  Mispeh  (1  Sam.  vii.  5), 
at  Ramah  (1  Sam.  vii.  17),  at  Gilgal  (1  Sam.  x.  8,  xi.  15, 
xv.  21-33),  at  Zuph  (1  Sam.  ix.  12  sq.)}  at  Bethlehem  (1 
Sam.  xvi.  4-5),  at  Michmash  (1  Sam.  xiv.  35).  The  sac¬ 
rifices  are  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings.  The  puri¬ 
fications  are  by  simple  washing  with  water.  The  only 
feast  mentioned  is  an  annual  one  at  Bethlehem  (1  Sam. 
xx.  6).  On  the  other  hand,  the  ark  of  the  Covenant 
comes  into  prominence  as  vindicating  its  sanctity  wher¬ 
ever  it  was  carried.  It  was  captured  by  the  Philistines 
and  taken  from  Shiloh  into  their  own  country,  but  sub¬ 
sequently  returned  and  placed  under  the  charge  of  Le¬ 
vitical  priests  at  Kirjath-Jearim,  where  it  remained  twenty 
years  (1  Sam.  v.-vii.).  This  hill  is  called  the  hill  of  God, 
and  had  its  high  place,  whither  pilgrimages  were  made 
(1  Sam.  x.  5).  Nob  also  was  a  holy  place  where  the 
priests  dwelt,  having  the  tent  of  meeting,  shew-bread, 
and  ephod  (1  Sam.  xxi.  9).  The  Urim  and  Thummim 
was  also  consulted.  These  are  sacred  things  of  the 

*  The  Nazarite  Samson  abstains  from  wine,  and  from  eating-  unclean  things, 
and  from  cutting  the  hair  (Ju.  xiii.  4-5),  but  he  uses  the  jawbone  of  an  ass  as  a 
weapon  to  destroy  his  enemies  (Ju.  xiv.  15-20),  in  violation  of  the  law  of  the 
Nazarite  in  the  priests’  code,  which  forbids  the  Nazarite  from  coming  in  contact 
with  a  dead  body.  It  is  sufficient  to  read  the  law  of  Num.  vi.  to  see  that  Sam¬ 
son  was  a  very  different  kind  of  Nazarite  from  that  contemplated  in  the  priests 
code. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


113 


priest-code.  They  imply  a  use  of  these  things  at  this 
time,  but  do  not  imply  a  use  of  the  priest-code  ;  for 
they  are  in  a  different  form  and  of  a  different  character 
from  that  in  which  they  appear  in  the  priest-code.  Sam¬ 
uel  and  the  nation  as  a  whole  neglected  the  ark  of  the 
Covenant,  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  the  priesthood  at  Nob, 
in  violation  of  the  priest-code  and  Deuteronomic  code. 

Dr.  Green  thus  explains  these  things  :  “  During  all  this 
period  of  sad  degeneracy  and  earnest  labors  for  Israel’s 
reformation,  Samuel  prayed  for  the  people  and  pleaded 
with  them  and  led  their  worship.  He  sacrificed  at  Mis- 
peh,  at  Gilgal,  at  Ramah,  at  Bethel  (possibly),  and  at 
Bethlehem,  but  never  once  at  Kirjath-Jearim.  He  never 
assembled  the  people  at  or  near  the  house  of  Abinidab. 
He  never  took  measures  to  have  the  ark  present  at  any 
assembly  of  the  people  or  upon  any  occasion  of  sacrifice. 
The  Lord  had  not  indicated  His  will  to  establish  another 
sanctuary  where  He  might  record  His  name  in  place  of 
Shiloh,  which  he  had  forsaken.”* 

This  explanation  seems  to  us  invalid  for  these  rea¬ 
sons :  (i)  According  to  the  priest-code  the  ark  of  the 
Covenant  was  the  throne  of  Yahweh,  and  it  alone  gave 
the  place  where  it  rested  sanctity.  Shiloh  was  a  holy 
place  only  so  long  as  the  ark  was  there.  Wherever  it 
went  it  made  a  holy  place.  So  the  hill  Kirjath-Jearim 
became  holy  and  the  house  of  God  so  long  as  the  ark 
was  there.  As  we  interpret  I  Sam.  x.,  this  place  is 
called  the  hill  of  God  and  house  of  God,  and  pilgrimages 
were  made  thither  for  worship  by  bands  of  prophets. 
But  if  Dr.  Green’s  interpretation  of  this  passage  be  cor¬ 
rect  and  Bethel  is  the  hill  of  God,  then,  according  to  this 
passage,  it  is  a  place  of  pilgrimage  and  worship  rather 


*  Moses  and  Ihe  Prophets,  1882,  p.  150. 


THE  IIEXATEUCH 


114 

than  the  place  of  the  ark,  a  still  more  flagrant  violation 
of  the  priest-code.  And  if  we  do  not  find  worship  at 
Kirjath-Jearim  here,  what  evidence  is  there  save  silence , 
that  Samuel  and  the  people  did  not  resort  thither  for 
worship  as  well  as  to  other  places  ?  (2)  But  why  did 

Samuel,  the  fearless  reformer,  so  neglect  the  priest-code 
and  Deuteronomic  code  while  the  ark  remained  for 
twenty  years  within  easy  access  at  Kirjath-Jearim? 

Advancing  into  the  period  of  the  Kings  we  find  the 
worship  at  the  high  places  continues.  David  brought 
up  the  ark  of  the  Covenant  to  Zion  and  erected  a  new 
tent  for  it  (2  Sam.  vi.  1— 1 7).  He  also  erected  an  altar, 
and  sacrificed  on  Mt.  Moriah,  the  site  of  the  temple. 
The  offerings  are  whole  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offer¬ 
ings.  The  purifications  are  not  indicated  ;  the  feasts  are 
the  Sabbaths,  new  moons,  and  other  festivals  not  speci¬ 
fied.  We  note  the  presence  of  the  brazen  altar,  the 
tabernacle  of  Yahweh,  the  tent  of  meeting  and  the  shew- 
bread,  of  the  priest-code,  in  the  Chronicler  (1  Chron.  xv. 
17,  xvi.  39,  40,  xxi.  29,  xxiii.  29);  but  the  other  writers 
knew  nothing  of  these  things. 

The  erection  of  the  temple  of  Solomon  concentrated 
the  worship  of  the  people  at  Jerusalem,  but  did  not  do 
away  with  the  worship  on  high  places  or  bring  about  a 
general  recognition  of  the  Deuteronomic  code.  The 
offerings  are  confined  to  whole  burnt-offerings  and  peace- 
offerings.  The  Levitical  purifications  are  not  mentioned. 
The  Chronicler  mentions  the  celebration  of  the  Sabbath, 
new  moons,  and  three  great  feasts,  (unleavened  bread, 
feast  of  weeks,  and  especially  tabernacles  2  Chron.  vii. 
8-10;  viii.  3.);  and  that  the  temple  and  its  priesthood 
were  organized  in  accordance  with  a  plan  given  by  God 
to  David  (1  Chron.  xxviii.  19) ;  but  these  things  are  un¬ 
known  to  the  prophetic  histories. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


115 


Taking  our  stand  here  by  the  temple  of  Solomon  and 
looking  back  through  the  previous  history  to  the  con¬ 
quest,  we  note  a  constant  transgression  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  and  priests’  code,  or  rather  an  apparent 
unconsciousness  of  their  existence.  And  yet  some  of  the 
most  essential  things  of  the  priest-code  are  mentioned  by 
the  Chronicler.  These  cannot  be  explained  by  the  theory 
of  the  school  of  Reuss.  The  way  that  Kuenen  and  Well- 
hausen  meet  the  difficulty  is  hardly  creditable  to  their 
fairness  and  good  judgment.  We  cannot  consent  to  the 
denial  of  the  historical  sense  of  the  Chronicler  for  the  sake 
of  any  theory.  We  might  conceive  that  the  tabernacle 
was  an  idealizing  of  the  temple  in  accordance  with  the 
difference  between  the  nomadic  life  and  the  settled  life 
of  the  holy  land,  if  there  were  any  propriety  in  this 
idealization  under  the  circumstances.  We  have  a  brill¬ 
iant  example  of  the  power  of  the  imagination  of  a 
prophet  in  such  an  artistic  elaboration  and  detailed  rep¬ 
resentation  in  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.  Ezekiel’s  imagination 
goes  forth  into  the  future  and  from  the  river  Chebar  to 
the  Holy  Land.  We  cannot  therefore  deny  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  such  a  prophet  as  Ezekiel  constructing  an  ideal 
of  legislation  in  the  wilderness  with  all  its  details.  And 
yet  it  seems  arbitrary  for  the  school  of  Reuss  to  make 
Ezekiel’s  legislation  a  programme  and  that  of  Exodus 
an  idealization.  There  is  propriety  in  the  representation 
of  Ezekiel  in  taking  the  Holy  Land  as  the  site  of  his 
temple  and  institution.  But  there  is  no  propriety  in 
the  supposed  post-exilic  author  of  the  middle  books  tak¬ 
ing  the  wilderness  and  the  nomadic  life  as  the  scene  of 
his  legislation.  He  would  rather  from  the  necessities  of 
the  case  have  followed  the  Deuteronomist  and  Ezekiel, 
and  have  legislated  in  his  programme  for  the  Holy 
Land.  There  must  be  some  substantial  basis  in  the  his- 


116 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


tory  for  his  representation.  This,  however,  does  not 
force  us  to  think  of  the  antiquity  of  our  present  priests’ 
code,  but  only  of  the  antiquity  of  those  laws  and  insti¬ 
tutions  in  it  which  are  ascribed  to  the  earlier  times. 
The  Davidic  legislation  and  the  organization  of  the 
temple  service  point  backward  to  the  simpler  Mosaic 
legislation  of  which  it  is  an  elaboration.  The  temple 
of  Solomon  is  easier  to  explain  on  the  basis  of  the 
tabernacle  of  Moses  than  the  latter  on  the  basis  of  the 
former. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this  concentration  of  worship, 
the  Deuteronomic  code  is  not  fulfilled  by  the  doing 
away  of  high  places  and  sacrifices  thereon.  The  sacri¬ 
fices  of  sin  and  trespass-offerings,  the  purifications  and 
the  feasts  of  the  priest-code  do  not  appear.  The  Da¬ 
vidic  legislation  is  thus  at  an  angle  with  the  Penta- 
teuchal ;  being  on  the  one  side  an  advance,  and  on  the 
other  a  remarkable  falling  behind  the  requirements  of 
the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code,  which  cannot 
be  accounted  for  if  they  were  taken  as  the  basis  of  the 
Davidic  constitution,  or  if  they  had  been  in  general  ob¬ 
servance  since  the  conquest. 

The  rupture  of  the  nation  after  the  death  of  Solomon 
rendered  the  observance  of  the  Davidic  constitution  as 
well  as  the  priest-code  and  Deuteronomic  code*  an  im¬ 
possibility  for  the  northern  kingdom.  Ancestral  worship 
on  high  places  is  conducted  by  Elijah  on  Carmel  and 
by  others  at  various  altars.  In  Judah  itself  it  continued 
as  the  prevailing  mode  of  worship,  save  for  the  spas¬ 
modic  efforts  of  Hezekiah  and  J osiah,  until  after  the  exile 
of  the  northern  kingdom.  This  worship  on  high  places 
even  survives  the  destruction  of  the  temple  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem,  and  we  find  a  company  of  pilgrims  resorting  to  the 
ancient  sanctuary  at  Mispeh  (Jer.  xli.  5  sq.)  after  the 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


117 


overthrow  of  the  nation.  Dr.  Green  explains  these 
things  thus  :  “  The  worship  on  high  places  was  irreg¬ 

ular  and  illegal  after  the  temple  was  built ;  but  the  fact 
that  they  were  tolerated  by  pious  princes,  who  contented 
themselves  with  abolishing  the  emblems  and  practice  of 
idolatry  found  there,  only  shows  that  they  did  not  do 
their  whole  duty — not  that  the  law  which  had  ruled 
ever  since  the  days  of  Moses  did  not  exist.  They  may 
very  easily  have  persuaded  themselves  that  the  spirit  of 
the  law  was  maintained  if  only  the  abuses  were  recti¬ 
fied  ;  that  if  God  was  sincerely  and  piously  worshipped 
in  these  local  sanctuaries,  there  could  not  be  much  harm 
in  suffering  them  to  remain.”  This  explanation  is  not 
satisfactory.  For  (i)  it  is  an  utdikely  supposition  that 
these  pious  princes  so  neglected  a  well-known  duty.  (2) 
It  assumes  that  the  law  ruled  from  the  days  of  Moses, 
which  is  the  reverse  of  the  facts.  (3)  It  assumes  that 
these  pious  princes  presumed  to  please  God  by  neglect¬ 
ing  the  prescriptions  of  the  law  and  recognizing  true 
worship  against  the  law. 

Looking  now  at  the  testimony  of  Hebrew  Literature 
with  reference  to  the  offerings,  the  purifications,  and  the 
feasts  of  the  priest-code,  these  are  conspicuous  by  their 
absence  prior  to  the  exile  The  sin-offering  first  and 
alone  appears  in  the  pre-exilic  history  in  the  reform  of 
Hezekiah  according  to  the  Chronicler  (2  Chron.  xxix. 
20-24).  It  is  not  found  in  the  pre-exilic  prophets,  or  in 
the  entire  Psalter  save  possibly  the  exilic  Ps.  xl. ;  or  in 
the  ethical  writings.  In  pre-exilic  writings  the  trespass¬ 
offering  is  not  found.  It  first  occurs  in  the  exilic  Isaiah 
liii. ;  the  Levitical  purifications  are  not  mentioned  ;  the 
feasts  of  the  priest-code  do  not  appear.* 


*With  reference  to  this  sin-offering  of  Hezekiah,  one  can  see  no  evidence  that  it 
was  offered  in  accordance  with  the  ritual  of  the  sin-offering,  Lev.  iv.  13.  sg, 


118 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


What,  then,  are  we  to  conclude  from  these  facts  ?  The 
traditional  theory  was  not  designed  to  account  for  them. 
The  theory  of  Reuss  was  constructed  in  order  to  account 
for  them  on  the  ground  that  the  codes  did  not  come 
into  existence  until  they  are  recognized  in  the  literature 
and  the  history  of  Israel.  The  traditional  theory  is 
against  the  facts  so  far  as  it  is  claimed  by  Marsh,  Horne, 
and  others,  that  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  was  ob¬ 
served  in  Israel  from  the  conquest  to  the  exile,  the  in¬ 
fractions  being  only  occasional.  On  the  other  hand  the 
evidence  is  invincible  from  silence  and  repeated  instances 
of  infraction  in  unconscious  innocence  and  uncondemned, 
that  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  not  so  observed. 

II. — The  witness  of  the  Literature  as  to  non-observance 

of  the  Law . 

There  is  also  abundant  evidence  from  positive  state¬ 
ments  in  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  that  the 


where  the  blood  must  be  sprinkled  before  Yahweh,  and  put  some  of  it  upon  the 
horns  of  the  altar  of  incense  and  all  the  rest  poured  out  at  the  base  of  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering.  The  ritual  seems  rather  to  be  similar  to  that  of  the  burnt- 
offering  (Lev.  i.),  where  the  blood  is  scattered  upon  the  altar  (comp  2  Chron. 
xxix.  22  and  Lev.  i.  5).  We  find  in  (2  Kings  xii.  16)  in  the  reign  of  Joash 
that  sin  and  trespass  money  was  given  to  the  priests  as  a  fine  or  compensa¬ 
tion  for  neglected  duties,  which  corresponds  with  the  law  of  the  sin-offering 
that  the  flesh  goes  to  the  priests,  but  there  is  no  victim  here,  and  hence  no  cor¬ 
respondence  with  the  priest-code.  The  attempt  of  Delitzsch  {Pent.  Krit.  Stu- 
dien ,  p.  9),  to  find  a  sin-offering  in  Hos.  iv.  8  (followed  by  Keil,  Com.  Ezek.  2d 
Auf.,  p.  21),  is  a  novel  txplanation  of  the  passage  and  against  the  context.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  passage,  Micah  vi.  7.  They  are  properly  rendered  in  the  A.  V. : 
“sin  of  my  people,”  parallel  with  “ iniquity,”  and  “  sin  of  my  soul,”  parallel 
with  “my  transgression.”  The  supposed  sin-offering  of  the  Psalm  xl.,  is  a  mis¬ 
taken  rendering  of  a  noun  which  here  as  everywhere  else  should  be  rendered 
“sin.”  The  trespass-offering  of  Isaiah  liii.  10  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Messianic 
servant  consisting  of  himself.  This  undoubtedly  presupposes  a  victim  in  the  tres¬ 
pass-offering,  but  inasmuch  as  all  critics  agree  that  the  second  half  of  Isaiah  is 
exilic,  that  passage  cannot  help  us  to  prove  it  a  pre-exilic  trespass-offering. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


119 


Legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  was  not  observed  in  the 
historic  life  of  the  Hebrew  people. 

(i).  The  prophet  Amos  (v.  25)  represents  that  during 
the  forty  years  wanderings,  Israel  did  not  offer  burnt- 
offerings  and  peace-offerings  to  Yahweh.  This  corre¬ 
sponds  with  the  statement  Josh.  v.  5,  that  circumcision 
had  been  neglected  so  that  an  entire  generation  had  to 
be  circumcised  at  Gilgal,  after  the  entrance  into  Pales¬ 
tine.  Then  the  Passover  was  kept  which  had  likewise 
been  neglected.  The  neglect  of  those  essential  things 
carries  with  it  the  non-observance  of  the  entire  priests’ 
code,  for  according  to  that  code  an  uncircumcised  man  or 
one  who  did  not  keep  the  Passover  was  cut  off  from  the 
congregation.  The  period  of  the  Judges  is  character¬ 
ized  by  the  failure  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  and 
by  a  series  of  captivities  under  foreign  oppressors,  dur¬ 
ing  which  tribal  chieftains  and  local  judges  assumed 
the  place  assigned  to  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  to 
the  kings  by  the  Deuteronomic  code. 

How  could  there  be  one  sanctuary  in  the  midst  of  in¬ 
dependent,  hostile,  and  warring  tribes  ?  The  observance 
of  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code  was  impos¬ 
sible  even  if  they  had  been  in  existence.  The  rally  of 
the  nation  under  Phinehas  against  Benjamin  (Judges  xx.), 
to  avenge  the  wrong  of  the  Levite,  was  the  last  until  the 
revival  of  Samuel,  and  this  is  narrated  in  one  of  the. 
latest  documents  of  the  Book.  Indeed,  there  was  no 
nation  as  such  under  Samuel  and  Saul.  It  was  not  until 
David  established  his  throne  in  Jerusalem  and  moved 
the  ark  of  the  Covenant  thither  that  a  political  and  relig¬ 
ious  unity  became  possible.  Then  again  we  see  a  great 
rally  of  the  nation  about  the  ark  and  the  priesthood,  but 
it  would  have  been  impossible  to  overcome  the  worship 
on  high  places  and  ancestral  modes  of  worship,  even  if 


120 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


an  attempt  had  been  made  to  execute  such  legislation 
as  is  found  in  D,  H,  and  P.  That  which  could  not  be  ac¬ 
complished  by  David  and  Solomon  became  impossible 
when  Jeroboam  tore  away  the  mass  of  Israel  from  the 
house  of  David.  Nor  could  weakened  Judah,  under  its 
most  pious  kings,  such  as  Jehoshaphat  and  Joash,  do 
more  than  overcome,  in  part,  idolatry  at  the  high  places. 
It  was  not  until  the  reforms  of  Hezekiah  and  especially 
of  Josiah,  that  Israel  for  brief  periods  could  be  brought 
to  the  acceptance  of  the  Deuteronomic  code. 

(2) .  And  here  we  meet  the  statement  that  the  Deuter¬ 
onomic  code,  thrown  aside  and  neglected  in  the  temple, 
was  providentially  discovered  and  brought  to  light  as  the 
basis  of  the  reform.  If  the  Deuteronomic  code  could  thus 
be  lost  sight  of,  how  much  more  the  elaborate  and  techni¬ 
cal  priests’  code  if  such  a  code  were  in  existence  ?  We  also 
meet  the  statement  that  the  Passover  had  not  been  ob¬ 
served  in  accordance  with  the  law  from  the  time  of  the 
observance  of  the  Passover  by  Joshua  and  Israel  on  their 
entrance  into  the  holy  land  (Josh  v.)  If  such  an  important 
institution  as  the  Passover  could  have  been  so  neglected 
from  the  conquest  to  the  days  of  Josiah,  how  much 
more  other  institutions  of  Deuteronomy  of  less  funda¬ 
mental  importance? 

(3) .  After  a  brief  period  of  reform  under  Josiah,  Judah 
went  into  exile,  and  it  was  not  until  the  return  from 
exile  under  the  more  favorable  circumstances  of  a  small, 
compact  and  select  population,  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
could  reform  the  nation  on  the  basis  of  the  priests’  code. 
Here,  again  (Neh.  viii.  17),  we  have  the  statement  that 
the  feast  of  tabernacles  had  not  been  observed  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  priest-code  from  the  time  of  Joshua  onward, 
until  that  occasion.  If  this  be  true  of  this  great  feast, 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


121 


how  much  more  of  other  feasts  and  institutions  of  the 
priest-code  ? 

(4) .  If  we  compare  the  statement  of  the  Chronicler 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21  with  Jer.  xxv.  11,  12,  and  Lev.  xxvi. 
34  scq .,  it  is  impossible  to  escape  the  conclusion  that 
the  non-observance  of  the  Sabbatical  year  of  the  priest- 
code  is  assigned  as  one  of  the  chief  reasons  of  the  exile, 
and  that  the  seventy  years  of  its  duration  have  a  certain 
proportion  of  retribution  in  relation  to  a  long-continued 
series  of  non-observances.  If  now  we  compare  the  law 
of  the  seventh  year  in  the  three  codes,  we  find  a  devel¬ 
opment  from  the  more  simple  provisions  of  Ex.  xxiii. 
10,  11,  through  Deut.  xv.  1-3,  to  Lev.  xxv.  In  this 
latter  passage  the  Sabbatical  feasts  reach  their  culmina¬ 
tion  in  the  year  of  Jubilee.  The  neglect  of  the  seventh 
year  carries  with  it  the  neglect  of  the  Jubilee  year.  In¬ 
deed,  this  elaborate  Sabbatical  system  required  for  its 
fulfilment  a  people  and  a  land  in  an  entirely  different 
situation  from  that  of  Israel  in  the  entire  period  from 
the  conquest  to  the  exile. 

(5) .  The  most  sacred  day  of  the  Mosaic  calendar  was 
the  Day  of  Atonement.  On  this  day  the  sin-offering 
attained  its  culmination.  The  sin-offering  of  the  ritual 
for  the  new  moons  and  the  double  sin-offerings  for  the 
great  feasts  reached  their  climax  in  the  goat  for  Azazel 
and  the  goat  for  Yahweh — expressing  the  two  sides  of 
expiation  by  blood  and  of  forgiveness  by  entire  removal. 
It  is  here  a  most  singular  fact  that  in  the  priest-code 
(Lev.  xvi.)  we  have  the  institution  of  the  Day  of  Atone¬ 
ment  and  its  peculiar  sacrifices,  but  nowhere  in  the 
Pentateuch  or  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament  any 
account  of  the  observance  in  fact.  There  is  no  allusion, 
direct  or  indirect,  to  its  most  solemn  services  in  Hebrew 
history  or  prophecy,  in  sacred  song  or  sentence  of  wis- 


122 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


dom.  It  seems  not  to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  historic 
life  and  experience  of  the  people.  The  omission  of  the 
sin-offering  in  its  simpler  form  shows  very  clearly  that 
the  people  of  Israel  had  not  in  their  historical  life  at¬ 
tained  the  religious  experience  that  was  indispensable 
for  an  apprehension  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  and  its 
deep  religious  lessons.  The  historical  realization  first 
appears  in  the  first  century  before  the  advent  of  our 
Saviour.* 

Thus  comparing  the  codes  with  the  history,  we  must 
regard  them  as  ideals  in  an  ascending  series  from  the 
Covenant  codes  through  the  Deuteronomic  code  to  the 
priests’-code,  which  could  not  be  realized  in  the  historical 
experience  of  the  nation.  If  the  Covenant  code  of  E 
was  based  upon  the  idea  that  Israel  was  a  kingdom  of 
priests,  a  holy  nation,  and  the  Deuteronomic  code  was 
pervaded  with  deep  spiritual  conceptions  of  faith,  love, 
and  absolute  devotion  to  God,  and  if,  in  the  priests’  code, 
the  idea  of  holiness  is  wrought  out  from  the  holy  throne  of 
the  ark  into  all  the  details  of  the  national  life  ;  then  these 
were  beyond  the  experience  of  the  tribes  who  entered  the 
Holy  Land.  In  order  to  its  execution,  the  priests’  code 
required  a  holy  land  under  the  absolute  control  of  a  holy 
people,  all  the  alien  nations  exterminated,  and  every 
impure  influence  banished.  It  required  a  united,  homo¬ 
geneous  people,  living  in  a  land  under  the  protection  of 
the  continued  presence  of  God  in  the  form  of  a  the- 
ophany  enthroned  in  the  throne  room  of  the  Holy  of 


*  Prof.  Delitzsch  discusses  this  subject  in  an  admirable  manner  in  Zeitsckri/t 
/.  KirchlicJte  IVissenschaft,  1880,  IV.  We  agree  with  him  that  the  passages,  1 
Kings  viii.  27,  seg.\  Ezra  iii.  1-6;  Neh.  viii.  13-17;  Ezekiel  xlv.  18-20;  Zech. 
vii.-viii.,  do  not  necessarily  exclude  the  Day  of  Atonement,  but  we  must  go 
further  and  conclude  that  the  most  natural  explanation  of  this  silence  under  the 
circumstances  of  these  passages  is  that  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  not  observed. 


THE  WITNES3  OF  THE  HISTORY 


123 


Holies  on  the  cherubic  throne  above  the  ark.  It  re¬ 
quired  a  strict  attention  to  all  the  details  of  the  life  as 
to  personal  purity  and  ministry.  The  spirituality  of 
the  Deuteronomic  code  in  its  grand  ideal  was  as  far 
above  Israel  as  a  nation,  as  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in 
John’s  gospel  are  above  the  Church  of  Christ.  The 
perfect  sanctity  of  the  priests’  code  was  as  far  above 
the  experience  of  Israel  as  a  nation  as  our  Saviour’s 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  His  parables  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  are  above  the  experience  of  our  life  as  Chris¬ 
tians  to-day.  This  ideal  and  prophetic  element  of  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  has  been  buried  under  the 
traditional  theories  of  the  Pharisees,  which  have  come 
down  as  a  yoke  of  bondage  and  a  dark  cloud  of  supersti¬ 
tion  to  the  Christian  Church.  Stripping  these  off,  we 
behold  in  the  Pentateuch  vastly  more  than  it  has  been  the 
custom  to  find  there.  We  find  not  only  the  Deuter¬ 
onomic  prediction  of  a  prophet  like  Moses  fulfilled  in 
Jesus  Christ,  but  that  the  whole  law  is  prophetic  of  the 
Gospel.  To  this  the  interpretation  of  the  apostles,  and 
especially  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  pointed  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church ;  but  Christian  exegetes  have  been  halting 
on  the  threshold  and  have  not  entered  into  this  grand 
tabernacle  of  prophecy. 

Do  these  codes  lie  at  the  basis  of  the  history  of  Israel 
as  ideals  to  be  realized  in  the  experience  of  the  nation, 
as  the  gospels  lie  at  the  basis  of  Christian  History? 
This  is  the  theory  which  was  proposed  in  1883.  But  a 
more  thorough  study  shows  that  this  theory  does  not 
account  for  all  the  facts  of  the  case.  There  are  evidences 
of  the  presence  from  time  to  time  in  the  history  and  liter¬ 
ature  of  certain  laws  of  D  before  Josiah,  and  of  certain 
laws  of  P  before  Ezra,  but  not  of  these  codes  and  writ¬ 
ings  as  such.  In  general  there  is  silence  as  to  these 


124 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


codes  and  there  is  unconscious  infraction  of  them.  The 
history  knows  nothing  of  the  code  of  D  before  Josiah 
and  of  the  code  of  P  before  Ezra.  No  attempt  was  made 
to  enforce  the  codes  of  D  or  P  until  these  dates.  There 
is  silence  on  the  one  hand,  and  there  is  infraction  on  the 
other.  There  seems  no  room  for  them  in  the  times  of 
Moses  or  Joshua  or  Samuel  or  David.  The  providential 
historical  circumstances  did  not  admit  of  obedience  to 
such  elaborate  codes  before  we  find  them  in  the  history 
of  the  times  of  Josiah  and  Ezra.  A  priestly  code  seems 
to  require  its  historical  origin  in  a  dominant  priesthood. 
A  prophetic  code  seems  best  to  originate  in  a  period 
when  prophets  were  in  the  pre-eminence.  A  theocratic 
code  suits  best  a  prosperous  kingdom  and  a  period  when 
elders  and  judges  were  in  authority.  Is  it  the  most 
natural  supposition  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  remained 
buried  from  Moses  until  Josiah  and  the  priest-code 
from  Moses  until  Ezra?  Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  was  a  recodification 
of  an  ancient  code  discovered  in  the  temple  in  Josiah’s 
time,  and  that  the  priest-code  is  a  recodification  of  older 
codes  and  priestly  traditional  customs  and  ritual  for  the 
purpose  of  Ezra's  reform  ?  Would  God  inspire  holy 
men  to  codify  these  codes  of  legislation  centuries  before 
they  could  be  used  ?  The  ideal  prophetic  character  of 
these  codes  best  explains  itself  when  the  law  like  the 
prophets  and  the  wisdom  literature  and  the  psalmody 
springs  out  of  the  historic  development  of  the  kingdom 
of  redemption. 

III. —  The  Religions  Development  of  Israel. 

It  is  clear  from  the  Literature  that  there  is  a  develop¬ 
ment  in  the  worship  of  Israel  as  well  as  in  doctrines 
and  morals.  The  traditional  theory  is  at  fault  in  inter- 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


125 


preting  the  history  chiefly  as  a  series  of  apostasies. 
This  pessimistic  view  of  the  religion  of  Israel  is  against 
the  facts  of  the  case.  In  morals  and  in  faith  there  is 
manifest  progress.  There  must  have  gone  along  with 
progress  in  these  things  religious  progress  also.  Doc¬ 
trinal  and  ethical  progress  is  indeed  impossible  without 
a  progress  in  the  religion  that  underlies  and  shapes 
doctrines  and  morals.  The  ancient  congregation  of 
Israel  no  more  went  on  declining  until  the  exile  than 
the  Christian  Church  has  been  declining  or  will  continue 
to  decline  till  the  Second  Advent.  There  were  tem¬ 
porary  declensions,  but  in  every  case  in  order  to  a  new 
advance.  Rather  as  the  Church  in  her  historic  life  has 
been  appropriating  more  and  more  the  faith  of  the  gos¬ 
pel,  so  did  Israel  in  her  experience  appropriate  more  and 
more  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Thus  we  can  trace  in  the 
history  of  Israel  a  religious  progress  in  remarkable  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  codes.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the 
school  of  Reuss  put  the  Covenant  code  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoshaphat.  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  it  in  all 
respects  in  the  previous  history,  and  there  seems  to  have 
been  a  progress  in  the  line  of  the  Covenant  code  up  to 
the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  and  beyond,  with  a  realization 
of  some  features  only  of  the  laws  of  the  other  codes.  It 
seems  most  probable  that  the  greater  code  of  the  Cov¬ 
enant  represents  the  Mosaic  code,  as  it  had  been  codi¬ 
fied  in  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  Deutero- 
nomic  code  is  certainly  the  basis  of  the  reform  of  Josiah 
and  enters  into  the  literature  of  the  time  in  the  book  of 
Jeremiah  and  the  Books  of  Kings.  The  priests’  code  was 
certainly  the  basis  of  the  reforms  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
and  enters  into  the  literature  of  the  Chronicler.  These 
reforms  show  successive  stages  of  appropriation  of  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation.  Was  there  not  a  development 


126 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


of  that  legislation  in  successive  codifications  in  order  to 
facilitate  that  appropriation  ? 

IV. —  The  Histories  and  the  Codes . 

The  fact  that  the  author  of  Kings  is  familiar  only  with 
Deuteronomy  and  the  author  of  Chronicles  with  the 
priest-code,  does  not  of  itself  prove  that  the  priest-code 
was  not  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  compiler  of  Kings, 
but  only  that  it  was  not  at  hand  ;  it  was  not  known  to 
him  or  used  by  him.  But  if  it  were  in  existence  why 
was  it  not  discovered  and  brought  to  light  by  the  pious 
Josiah,  Jeremiah  and  their  associates?  Did  they  not 
search  the  temple  where  if  anywhere  such  a  priest-code 
would  be  found  ?  They  certainly  were  anxious  to  obey 
God’s  law.  The  theory  of  the  school  of  Reuss  that  the 
Chronicler  so  greatly  colors  the  history  from  his  point 
of  view  as  to  falsify  it,  cannot  be  justified.  It  was 
natural  that  each  should  examine  the  history  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  code  most  familiar  to  him  ;  and  that 
the  author  of  Kings  and  the  Chronicler  should  therefore 
occupy  different  planes  of  judgment.  We  could  not 
reasonably  demand  that  they  should  be  colorless.  These 
differences  do  not  show  any  intentional  misinterpretation 
on  the  part  of  either  of  them,  or  that  the  Chronicler 
undertook  to  invent  the  history.  But  it  suggests  the 
natural  supposition  that  the  priests’  code  was  subsequent 
in  origin  to  the  Book  of  Kings. 

V. — Ezekiel  and  the  Codes. 

The  relation  of  the  code  of  Ezekiel  (xl.-xlviii.)  to  the 
priest’s  code  is  justly  regarded  as  the  key  of  the  situa¬ 
tion.  The  school  of  Reuss  represents  the  code  of  Ezekiel 
as  designed  for  the  returned  exiles  ;  and  that  it  was  a 
preparation  in  development  for  the  priests’  code.  The 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


127 


intermediate  position  of  the  code  of  Ezekiel  between  the 
Deuteronomic  code  and  the  priests’  code  is  in  dispute ; 
but  if  it  be  intermediate  it  is  no  more  necessary  in  this 
case,  than  in  the  others,  to  explain  the  fact  by  a  historical 
development  of  the  one  into  the  other.  But  rather  the 
changes  are  in  the  nature  of  an  idealization.  Ezekiel’s 
construction  of  the  temple,  the  division  of  the  holy  land 
among  the  tribes,  the  wonderful  river  of  life,  and  tree  of 
life,  mingle,  in  a  most  magnificent  prophetic  ideal  of  the 
imagination,  the  representations  of  the  garden  of  Eden, 
the  temple  of  Solomon,  the  division  of  the  land  at  the 
conquest,  and  the  great  works  of  architecture  on  the 
Euphrates, — in  their  combination,  impossible  of  realiza¬ 
tion  in  fact.  When  the  offerings  and  feasts  of  Ezekiel 
are  considered  from  this  point  of  view  they  seem  to  be 
intentionally  diverse  from  those  of  the  Mosaic  legisla¬ 
tion  in  Deuteronomy,  and  no  less  incapable  of  actual 
realization.  It  is  not  natural  to  think  of  them  as  a  legal 
programme  for  the  restoration.  This  whole  legislation 
of  Ezekiel  is  a  symbol,  tremendous  in  extent  and  in 
power ;  and  it  is  to  be  compared  with  the  symbols  of  the 
Resurrection  (xxxvii.  1-14),  the  union  of  the  two  sticks 
(xxxvii.  15-28),  the  marvellous  growth  of  the  cedar  twig 
(xvii.  22-24),  and  the  battle  with  Gog  and  Magog 
(xxxviii.-ix.) ;  for  Ezekiel  is  the  master  of  symbolical 
prophecy. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  worthy  of  note,  that  Ezekiel 
is  in  very  close  connection  with  the  code  of  Holiness  (Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi.).  This  section  has  certain  features  peculiar 
to  itself,  as  we  have  seen.  Graf,  Kayser,  and  others 
ascribed  it  to  the  prophet  Ezekiel  himself.  Horst  re¬ 
garded  it  as  a  codification  of  more  ancient  laws  by  Eze¬ 
kiel  prior  to  the  composition  of  his  own  code.  Kloster- 
mann  calls  it  the  “ Heiligkeitsgesetz."  It  is  now  agreed 


128 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


that  it  is  a  distinct  code.  We  designate  it  by  code  of 
Holiness  (H).  Reuss,  Wellhausen,  and  Kuenen  make  this 
code  later  than  Ezekiel,  but  prior  to  the  rest  of  the  Priests’ 
code.  Questions  of  relative  priority  and  dependence  are 
among  the  most  difficult  in  the  field  of  Higher  Criticism. 
Ezekiel’s  resemblance  to  it  in  many  respects  implies  a 
knowledge  of  its  legislation  whether  he  knew  it  in  its 
present  form  of  codification  or  not.  It  is  probable  that 
Ezekiel  knew  of  it,  but  it  is  difficult  to  prove  the  existence 
of  the  code  prior  to  Ezekiel. 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  arguments  relied  upon  by 
the  school  of  Reuss  for  their  theory  of  the  development  of 
the  Hexateuch.  These  sustain  the  theory  so  far  as  the 
codification  of  the  legislation  in  its  present  literary  forms 
is  concerned ;  but  not  so  far  as  to  disprove  earlier  tradi¬ 
tional  Mosaic  legislation  and  earlier  Mosaic  codes  which 
have  been  used  by  holy  men  with  historic  reverence  and 
under  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  their  codifica¬ 
tion  of  ancient  laws  and  their  composition  of  the  historic 
documents  into  which  the  codes  were  taken  up. 


XIII. 

THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS. 

The  development  hypothesis  of  Reuss  soon  gained 
the  mastery  over  the  older  theories  of  the  composition 
of  the  Hexateuch  and  assumed  various  forms  in  the  dif¬ 
ferent  schools  of  criticism.  The  discussion  of  the  devel¬ 
opment  hypothesis  of  the  school  of  Reuss  was  opened 
in  Great  Britain  by  W.  Robertson  Smith  in  his  article 
on  the  Bible  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica.  Smith  fol¬ 
lowed  the  school  of  Reuss  with  great  boldness  and 
thoroughness.  He  was  opposed  by  Principal  Douglas 
of  Glasgow,  who  advocated  the  traditional  theory.  W. 
Robertson  Smith,  in  defence,  delivered  his  lectures  on  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  and  the  Prophets 
of  Israel  which  have  exerted  a  vast  influence  in  English- 
speaking  lands.  Charges  of  heresy  were  made  against 
him  before  the  Free  Presbytery  of  Aberdeen  and  the 
case  was  carried  by  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Free  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  which  decided 
in  his  favor  so  far  as  his  ministerial  right,  to  hold  such 
views  under  the  Westminster  Confession,  was  concerned  ; 
but  deprived  him  of  his  professorial  position  at  Aberdeen, 
in  order  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Church.  The 
contest  in  this  case  gained  liberty  of  opinion  in  Great 
Britain.  His  teacher,  Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson  of  Edin- 

(129) 


130 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


burgh,  who  held  essentially  the  same  views,  was  undis¬ 
turbed,  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  same  Church, 
May,  1892,  chose  Dr.  George  Adam  Smith,  who  holds 
similar  views,  to  be  the  successor  of  Principal  Douglas  at 
Glasgow.  The  discussion  was  opened  in  America  by  an 
article  by  the  author  *  in  the  Presbyterian  Review  in  1881, 
and  it  was  continued  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  same 
Review.  He  was  sustained  by  Prof.  Henry  P.  Smith  of 
Cincinnati  and  by  Prof.  Francis  Brown  of  New  York. 
Prof.  W.  Henry  Green  of  Princeton  defended  the  tra¬ 
ditional  theory  and  was  sustained  by  Drs.  A.  A.  Hodge 
and  F.  L.  Patton  of  Princeton.  Prof.  S.  Ives  Curtiss  of 
Chicago  and  Prof.  Willis  J.  Beecher  of  Auburn  took  a 
middle  position.  The  discussion  was  closed  by  articles')* 
by  Prof.  F.  L.  Patton  and  by  the  author  J  in  1883.  Since 
the  close  of  that  discussion  Profs.  Bissell  and  Osgood 
have  supported  the  traditional  theory  ;  but  Profs.  Gast, 
W.  R.  Harper,  George  F.  Moore,  J.  P.  Peters  and  many 
others  have  advanced  to  the  support  of  the  analysis  of 
the  Hexateuch.  Pres.  W.  R.  Harper  has  carried  on  a 
long  discussion  with  Prof.  W.  Henry  Green  in  the  He- 
braica,  going  over  the  greater  part  of  the  Hexateuch. 

The  school  of  Reuss  has  been  strongly  opposed  by 
Dillmann,  Baudissin,  and  Delitzsch  in  their  more  radical 
conclusions.  These  have  been  strengthened  by  younger 
scholars  such  as  Strack  and  Kittel.  These  all  make  a 
very  careful  analysis  of  the  documents,  are  agreed  as  to 
the  order  of  development  of  EJ  and  D,  but  think  that 
the  legislation  of  P  is  in  the  main  pre-exilic  and  that  a 
considerable  portion  of  it  very  ancient.  They  magnify 
the  amount  of  ancient  and  original  documents  used  by  P. 

*  “  Right ,  Duty ,  and  Limits  of  Biblical  Criticism .” 

t  Critical  Study  of  the  History  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 

X  The  Dogmatic  Aspect  of  Pent at euchal  Criticism. 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


131 


The  school  of  Reuss  agree  with  Dillmann  as  to  the 
date  of  Deuteronomy,  but  differ  from  him  as  to  the  date 
of  the  priest’s  narrative.  They  hold  it  to  be  post-exilic, 
but  Dillmann  maintains  that  it  was  pre-exilic,  and  that 
it  was  written  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  in  the  ninth  cen¬ 
tury  B.C.  Dillmann  in  this  has  measurably  advanced  in 
the  direction  of  the  school  of  Reuss,  but  he  stoutly  re¬ 
sists  their  main  thesis.  Dillmann  also  differs  from  the 
school  of  Reuss  as  to  the  relation  of  JE,  They  make  J 
the  earlier  document,  but  Dillmann  holds  that  E  was 
written  in  the  northern  kingdom  in  the  first  half  of  the 
ninth  century  B.C.,  and  that  J  was  written  in  the  south¬ 
ern  kingdom  not  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century.  There  is  also  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
work  of  editing  the  documents.  Dillmann  denies  that 
E  and  J  were  first  compacted  and  then  D  added  to  it 
and  finally  P.  He  holds  that  P,  E  and  J  were  three  in¬ 
dependent  documents,  and  that  they  were  compacted  at 
one  editing  just  before  the  exile,  and  that  during  the 
exile  they  were  attached  to  Deuteronomy. 

One  of  the  most  important  and  successful  parts  of  the 
analysis  of  Dillmann  is  his  work  upon  that  section  of 
the  priest-code,  which  he  names  the  Sinai  Code  (S).  This 
includes  the  code  of  Holiness  in  Leviticus,  and  other 
parts  of  the  priestly  legislation  which  share  its  peculiari¬ 
ties.  Kuenen  recognizes  this  as  an  earlier  stage  of  P, 
and  distinguishes  it  as  P1.  But  Dillmann  holds  that  it  is 
later  than  P,  although  it  contains  many  laws  of  great 
antiquity.  These  had  been  handed  down  in  the  circle 
of  priests  and  were  codified  shortly  before  the  exile,  pos¬ 
sibly  even  before  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy.  This 
code  was,  however,  revised  during  the  exile  and  en¬ 
larged.  Other  laws  were  also  collected  during  the 
exile  apart  from  this  codex.  These  together  with  S 


132 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


were  incorporated  in  JEDP  by  an  editor  of  the  priestly 
circle  among  the  exiles.  This  view  of  Dillmann  is  also 
an  approximation  to  the  school  of  Reuss,  for  it  makes  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  priest-code  later  than  the 
priestly  narrative,  and  thus  removes  many  of  the  objec¬ 
tions  to  the  older  view  of  Ewald,  De  Wette,  and  others, 
that  the  priestly  narrative  was  the  fundamental  writing 
of  the  Pentateuch.  We  think  that  Dillmann  has  done 
great  service  in  the  analysis  of  the  Sinai  code,  but  we 
cannot  agree  with  him  in  his  view  of  the  date  of  it,  and 
of  its  relation  to  the  priests’  narrative.  Here  is  a  field 
where,  as  Dillmann  admits,  the  difficulties  are  very  great. 
It  is  reserved  for  future  investigators  to  solve  this 
problem.  It  seems  to  us  that  Dillmann  has  shown  that 
many  of  these  laws  of  code  S  are  in  the  very  ancient 
form  of  the  Pentade,  and  that  the  priest-code  is  really  a 
complex  of  laws  of  different  origin. 

Baudissin*  has  rendered  a  real  service  to  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  by  his  investigation  of  the 
genesis  and  the  history  of  Priesthood  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment.  He  takes  his  stand  with  Dillmann,  Delitzsch  and 
Kittel  over  against  the  school  of  Reuss,  and  yet  he  is 
entirely  independent  in  his  methods,  and  has  not  a  few 
opinions  of  his  own.  He  holds  that  E  was  the  most 
ancient  of  the  documents.  This  was  united  with  J  by 
an  editor  who  compacted  them  so  tightly  that  it  is  often 
difficult  to  separate  them.  In  the  priestly  document,  he 
distinguishes  P1  and  P2  by  differences  in  their  views  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Levites.  He  thinks  that  the  legis¬ 
lation  of  P  is  the  result  of  a  long  legislative  development 
in  priestly  circles  at  Jerusalem.  From  time  to  time 
separate  codes  of  priestly  rules  were  written  down.  In 


*  Die  Ceschichte  des  Alttestamentlichen  Priesterthums.  Leipzig, 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


133 


the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century,  shortly  before  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  a  priest  collected  these,  with  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  the  code  of  Holiness(Lev.xvii.-xxvi.),  into  a  larger 
work  with  historical  and  genealogical  frames.  This  doc¬ 
ument  was  a  private  code  for  the  priesthood  at  Jerusa¬ 
lem.  It  elaborated  the  priestly  legislation  far  beyond 
existing  circumstances.  The  ideal  in  it  is  so  prominent 
that  many  of  its  laws  have  never  been  realized  in  fact. 
The  private  priestly  character  of  this  document  is  the 
reason  why  it  was  unknown  to  the  author  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code,  or  disregarded  by  him.  For  the  author  of 
D  wrote  a  people’s  book  in  view  of  the  conditions  and 
circumstances  of  his  times.  This  code  was  composed 
shortly  after  P,  and  reflects  the  religion  and  doctrines  of 
the  times  of  Jeremiah.  When  discovered  in  the  temple, 
it  became  the  basis  for  the  reform  of  Josiah.  But  the 
priests’  code  did  not  become  a  public  code  until  after 
the  exile,  in  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  code 
of  Holiness  remained  as  a  document  by  itself  until  late 
in  the  exile,  when  it  was  incorporated  in  P.  Ezekiel 
used  it  as  his  favorite  law  book,  while  it  was  a  code  by 
itself.  Baudissin  argues  that  the  neglect  to  use  P  by  D, 
together  with  the  use  of  JE  by  D,  implies,  not  the  non¬ 
existence  of  P,  but  only  that  at  that  time  JE  was  a 
document  by  itself.  He  aims  to  prove  the  pre-exilic 
composition  of  P,  by  showing  that  the  legislation  of 
Ezekiel  is  an  advance  upon  it  in  several  particulars,  such 
as  the  limitation  of  the  priesthood  to  the  line  of  Zadok ; 
the  slaying  of  sacrificial  victims  by  Levites  instead  of  by 
the  offerers  as  in  P ;  the  partial  substitution  of  the 
prince  for  the  high  priest  and  the  ignoring  of  the  latter ; 
the  enhanced  sanctity  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  ex¬ 
treme  precautions  for  guarding  the  approaches  to  the 
divine  presence.  He  also  shows  an  advance  of  the 


134 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Chronicler,  who  writes  in  the  late  Persian  period  or  early 
Greek  period  with  the  use  of  older  documents  from  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  beyond  P ;  and  that  the 
legislation  of  P  does  not  suit  the  circumstances  of  the 
new  community  in  Jerusalem  at  the  Restoration  in 
many  important  respects.  He  does  not  hesitate  to  re¬ 
gard  P  and  D  as  written  at  about  the  same  time.  The 
documents  were  compacted  during  the  last  years  of  the 
exile  by  the  Deuteronomist,  who  united  P  with  JE  and 
then  used  D  as  the  closing  legislation.  Baudissin  thinks 
that  this  order  that  was  followed  by  the  Deuteronomist 
who  edited  them,  favors  the  priority  of  P  to  D.  Bau¬ 
dissin  agrees  with  all  critics  in  the  analysis  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch,  except  that  in  a  few  cases  he  suggests  im¬ 
provements  and  modifications.  The  difference  between 
him  and  other  critics  is  in  the  date  of  the  document  P, 
and  the  time  and  method  of  compacting  the  four  great 
documents.  He  adds  to  the  investigation  of  Dillmann 
important  materials  for  that  work  which  is  so  greatly 
needed,  the  detailed  analysis  of  the  document  P ;  for, 
after  the  separation  of  the  code  of  Holiness,  to  which 
all  critics  are  agreed,  there  still  remain  different  layers 
of  legislation  which  must  be  analyzed  and  arranged  in 
historical  order  before  the  problem  of  the  Hexateuch 
can  be  entirely  solved. 

Cornill,  on  the  other  hand,  works  in  the  lines  of  the 
school  of  Reuss.  He  goes  into  a  detailed  analysis  of  E, 
J,  D  and  P,  and  throws  fresh  light  upon  their  sources. 
He  shows  that  D  uses  J  E,  but  knows  nothing  of  P. 
He  regards  E  as  an  Ephraimitic  writing,  and  places  E1 
in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.,  about  750  B.C.,  and  E2 
soon  after  the  exile  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  J  is  a 
Judaic  writing,  originating  in  its  different  stages  be¬ 
tween  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  850  B.C.,  and  625  B.C.  P 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  135 

is  an  exilic  law-book.  A  very  important  part  of  Cor- 
nill’s  work  is  the  special  consideration  of  a  number  of 
independent  documents,  which  the  great  documents 
have  taken  up  into  themselves  as  older  sources,  and 
which  have  come  in  through  the  redactors,  such  as  the 
ancient  poems,  the  story  of  Balaam,  Genesis  xiv.,  the 
Covenant  Code,  the  Code  of  Holiness,  etc.  The  Cov¬ 
enant  Code  he  regards  as  older  than  E,  coming  from 
the  ninth  century;  the  Code  of  Holiness,  as  a  prepara¬ 
tion  for  the  Priest’s  Code.  J  and  E  were  first  com¬ 
bined  by  Rj ;  then  these  were  combined  with  D  by  Rd. 
JED  were  then  compacted  with  P  by  Rp ;  but  ad¬ 
ditions  of  various  kinds  were  made  to  our  Pentateuch 
even  as  late  as  the  third  century  B.C. 

A  very  important  part  of  the  work  of  Cornill  is  his  ef¬ 
fort  to  trace  the  documents  of  the  Hexateuch,  JED, 
through  the  prophetic  historians,  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings.  Budde  had  already  done  valuable  work  in  this 
department  of  investigation.  If  this  theory  can  be 
worked  out  with  any  degree  of  certainty,  then  the  date 
of  the  documents  will  speedily  be  determined  within  quite 
narrow  limits.  Here  is  a  splendid  field  for  Higher  Criti¬ 
cism,  in  which  the  results  will  be  of  immense  importance. 

Canon  S.  R.  Driver,  in  his  invaluable  work,*  has 
massed  the  evidence  for  the  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch 
from  language  and  style  beyond  any  previous  writer. 
He  is  not  as  strong  in  the  historical  and  theological  evi¬ 
dence,  although  he  makes  valuable  contributions  in 
these  departments  also.  His  analysis  of  J  E  from  P, 
and  of  H  from  P,  and  D2  from  D,  is  masterly ;  but  he 
halts  in  his  separation  of  E  from  J.  The  date  of  Deuter¬ 
onomy  is  not  precisely  determined,  but  it  is  said  to  be 
not  later  than  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  “  All  things  con- 


*  The  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament. 


136 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


sidered,  a  date  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  monarchy 
would  seem  not  to  be  unsuitable  both  for  J  and  for  E  ; 
but  it  must  remain  an  open  question  whether  both  may 
not  in  reality  be  earlier/’  “  The  laws  of  H  were  ar¬ 
ranged  in  their  present  parenetic  frame-work  by  an  au¬ 
thor  who  was  at  once  a  priest  and  a  prophet,  probably 
towards  the  closing  years  of  the  monarchy.” 

“  These  arguments  are  cogent,  and  combine  to  make 
it  probable  that  the  completed  Priests’  Code  is  the  work 
of  the  age  subsequent  to  Ezekiel.  When,  however,  this 
is  said,  it  is  very  far  from  being  implied  that  all  the  in¬ 
stitutions  of  P  are  the  creation  of  this  age.  The  contra¬ 
diction  of  the  pre-exilic  literature  does  not  extend  to 
the  whole  of  the  Priests’  Code  indiscriminately.  The 
Priests’  Code  embodies  some  elements  with  which  the 
earlier  literature  is  in  harmony,  and  which  indeed  it 
presupposes :  it  embodies  other  elements  with  which 
the  same  literature  is  in  conflict,  and  the  existence  of 
which  it  even  seems  to  preclude.  This  double  aspect  of 
the  Priests’  Code  is  reconciled  by  the  supposition  that 
the  chief  ceremonial  institutions  of  Israel  are  in  their 
origin  of  great  antiquity ;  but  that  the  laws  respecting 
them  were  gradually  developed  and  elaborated,  and  in 
the  shape  in  which  they  are  formulated  in  the  Priests' 
Code  that  they  belong  to  the  exilic  or  early  post-exilic 
period.  In  its  main  stock,  the  legislation  of  P  was  thus 
not  (as  the  critical  view  of  it  is  sometimes  represented 
by  its  opponents  as  teaching)  ‘  manufactured  ’  by  the 
priests  during  the  exile :  it  is  based  upon  pre-existing 
Temple  usage ,  and  exhibits  the  form  which  that  finally 
assumed.  Hebrew  legislation  took  shape  gradually; 
and  the  codes  of  JE  (Ex.  20-23,  34,  10  ff.),  Dt.,  and  P 
represent  three  successive  phases  of  it.”* 


*  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament ,  p.  135. 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


137 


These  more  recent  investigations  have  greatly  en¬ 
riched  our  knowledge  of  the  earlier  strata  in  the  docu¬ 
ments.  This  is  the  field  in  which  criticism  will  hereafter 
gain  its  greatest  triumphs  and  reap  its  choicest  fruits. 
It  is  delicate,  intricate  and  difficult  work,  and  yet  it  is 
necessary  that  it  should  be  done.  Only  in  this  way  can 
we  now  prove  the  antiquity  of  the  legislation.  It  is 
clear  that  the  present  code  is  a  complex  of  legislation, 
some  parts  of  which  have  been  taken  from  earlier 
codes,  other  parts  being  a  codification  of  traditional 
liturgy  and  usage. 

It  is  necessary  not  only  to  distinguish  H  from  P,  but 
also  to  distinguish  P1  and  P2.  It  is  also  necessary  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  D1  and  D2,  J1  and  J2,  E1  and  E2,  and  thus  the 
problem  of  Pentateuchal  criticism  becomes  complex  and 
extremely  intricate.  It  is  easy  for  anti-critics  to  make 
sport  of  such  work.  Dr.  Bissell  objects  that  this  makes 
the  Pentateuch  a  piece  of  patchwork,  thus  showing  that 
he  has  not  yet  learned  the  difference  between  the  frag¬ 
mentary  hypothesis  of  Geddes  and  Vater,  which  is  open 
to  that  objection,  and  the  documentary  hypothesis,  the 
supplementary  hypothesis,  and  the  development  hy¬ 
pothesis,  which  have  successively  grown  into  one  another 
as  the  study  of  the  Hexateuch  has  advanced,  and  which 
no  true  scholar  could  possibly  regard  as  making  patch- 
work  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  for  they  all  keep  the  unity  of 
the  Hexateuch  in  mind  and  endeavor  to  show  how  the 
unity  springs  out  of  the  variety  of  documents.  A  nice 
piece  of  patchwork  is  to  be  seen  in  Prof.  Osgood’s  recent 
tract  of  35  pages  on  A  Reasonable  Hypothesis  of  the 
Origin  of  the  Pentateuch ,  advocating  the  traditional 
theory.  He  objects  to  Wellhausen’s  extreme  view  of  20 
or  more  writers  and  editors  of  the  Hexateuch  as  an  un- 


138 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


reasonable  hypothesis,  and  yet  in  the  body  of  his  tract, 
in  19  pages  treating  of  Assyria,  Egypt  and  Syria,  he  cites 
at  length  25  different  writers  in  428  lines,  and  writes  him¬ 
self,  counting  introduction,  conclusion  and  seams,  133 
lines.  If  he  had  omitted  quotation  marks  and  marginal 
references,  it  would  have  been  a  tough  piece  of  criticism 
to  get  at  these  25  authors  and  one  editor.  We  do  not 
consider  this  method  of  Prof.  Osgood  an  unreasonable 
method,  although  it  is  a  little  unusual.  The  unreason¬ 
ableness  of  the  Professor  is  in  his  doing  himself  in  such 
a  limited  space  so  much  more  of  the  same  work  that  he 
thinks  it  unreasonable  that  the  editor  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  should  have  done. 

The  climax  of  this  opposition  to  the  analysis  of  the 
Hexateuch  has  been  reached  by  an  ex-Hebrew  profes¬ 
sor,  who  prefers  the  pseudonym  McRealsham  under 
which  to  throw  contempt  upon  criticism  by  applying 
what  he  thinks  are  its  principles  in  a  dissection  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which  he  chiefly  succeeds  in 
showing  the  appropriateness  of  the  name  he  selected 
for  himself.  It  will  be  a  task  of  some  difficulty  for  him 
ever  to  get  rid  of  it. 

Prof.  Geo.  F.  Moore  of  Andover  has  recently  given  a 
comparison  of  the  methods  of  Tatian  in  his  Diatessaron , 
or  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  with  the  methods  of  the 
redactor  of  our  Hexateuch.  He  gives  the  following 
specimen  from  the  Diatessaron,  showing  on  the  margin 
the  Gospels  from  which  the  extracts  were  made  : 

1  Matt.  “i- 13-  * 1  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan 

2  Luke  iii.  23.  unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him.  And  Jesus 

was  about  thirty  years  of  age,  and  was  sup- 

*  The  No.  indicates  that  the  passage  which  follows  belongs  to  the  text  of 
Scripture  given  with  the  number.  This  notation  differs  from  that  given  by 
Moore. 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


139 


3  John  i.  29-31. 


4  Matt.  iii.  14  f. 


6  Luke  iii.  21  a. 

6  Matt.  iii.  16  b. 

7  Luke  iii.  22  a. 

8  Matt.  iii.  17. 

9  John  i.  32-34. 


lc)  Luke  iv,  1  a. 

11  Mark  i.  T2. 

12  Mark  i.  13  b. 

13  Matt.  iv.  2  a. 

14  Luke  iv.  2  b, 

15  Matt.  iv.  2  b-7. 


posed  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph.  3And  John  seeth 
Jesus  coming  unto  him,  and  saith,  Behold  the 
Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world.  30.  This  is  he  of  whom  I  said. 
After  me  cometh  a  man  which  is  preferred  be¬ 
fore  me,  for  he  was  before  me.  31.  And  I  knew 
him  not ;  but  that  he  should  be  made  manifest 
to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with 
water.  4And  John  forbade  him,  saying,  I  have 
need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou 
tome?  15.  Jesus  answering  said  unto  him, 
Suffer  it  to  be  so  now ;  for  thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  Then  he  suf¬ 
fered  him.  5And  when  all  the  people  were 
baptized,  Jesus  also  was  baptized.  6And  he 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water,  and  the 
heavens  were  opened  unto  him.  7And  the 
Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him  in  the  like¬ 
ness  of  a  dove  ;  8  and  lo,  a  voice  from  heaven, 
saying,  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased.  9And  John  bare  record,  saying, 
I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven,  like 
a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him.  33.  And  I 
knew  him  not ;  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize 
with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me.  Upon 
whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and 
remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  bap- 
tizeth  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  34.  And  I  saw 
and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God. 
,0And  Jesus,  being  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  re¬ 
turned  from  Jordan.  uAnd  immediately  the 
Spirit  driveth  him  into  the  wilderness  12  to  be 
tempted  of  Satan ;  and  he  was  with  the  wild 
beasts.  ,3And  he  fasted  forty  days  and  forty 
nights,  14  and  in  those  days  he  did  eat  noth¬ 
ing;  15 and  he  was  afterward  ahungered.  3. 
And  the  tempter  came  to  him,  and  said,  If 
thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these 
stones  be  made  bread.  4.  But  he  answered 
and  said,  It  is  written,  Man  shall  not  live  by 


140 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


18  Luke  iv.  5-7. 


bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceed- 
eth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  5.  Then  the 
devil  taketh  him  up  into  the  Holy  City,  and 
setteth  him  on  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  6. 
and  saith  unto  him,  If  thou  be  the  Son  of 
God,  cast  thyself  down  ;  for  it  is  written,  He 
shall  give  his  angels  charge  concerning  thee, 
and  in  their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up,  lest 
at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone. 
7.  Jesus  said  unto  him,  It  is  written  again, 
Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God. 
16And  the  devil  took  him  up  into  a  high  moun¬ 
tain,  and  showed  unto  him  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world  and  the  glory  of  them  in  a  mo¬ 
ment  of  time.  6.  And  the  devil  said  unto 
him,  All  this  power  will  I  give  thee,  and  the 
glory  of  it,  for  that  is  delivered  unto  me,  and 
to  whomsoever  I  will  I  give  it.  7.  If  thou 
therefore  wilt  worship  me,  all  shall  be  thine, 
etc. 


As  Prof.  Moore  says  : 

“  The  most  hair-splitting  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  seems 
sober  in  comparison  with  this  Composite  Gospel.  It  is,  to  use 
Prof.  Mead’s  figure,  a  patchwork,  crazier  than  the  wildest 
dreams  of  the  critics.  And  yet  I  think  no  one  will  read  it,  es¬ 
pecially  in  a  Semitic  language,  without  feeling  that  the  author 
has  succeeded  beyond  what  we  should  have  thought  possible  in 
making  a  unity  of  it.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  too,  that  this 
patchwork  was  made,  not  of  indifferent  historical  writings,  but 
of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian  church  ;  that  it  was  meant 
to  take  the  place  of  the  Gospels  ;  that  it  accomplished  its  end  so 
successfully  that  it  almost  completely  superseded  the  separate 
Gospels  in  the  public  use  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  Syrian 
church  ;  that  it  was  apparently  only  under  influences  from  with¬ 
out  that  it  was  banished  from  the  use  of  these  churches  in  the 
fifth  century.  Apharates  and  Ephraim  are  acquainted,  indeed, 
with  the  separate  Gospels ;  but  it  is  certainly  within  the  bounds 
of  possibility  that,  if  the  Syrian  church  had  been  left  to  itself, 
without  constant  contact  with  the  greater  church  to  the  West, 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


141 


the  knowledge  of  the  separate  Gospels  might  in  the  end  have 
been  lost,  even  among  the  learned.  The  parallel  to  the  history 
of  the  Pentateuch  would  then  have  been  complete.”  Journal 
of  Biblical  Literature,  1890,  ix.,  pp.  207  seg. 

We  have  higher  authority  than  Tatian  for  such  com¬ 
pilations  from  different  documents.  No  less  an  author¬ 
ity  than  the  apostle  Paul  uses  this  method  in  Romans 
iii.  9-18,  where  he  writes  : 

“What  then?  are  we  in  worse  case  than  they?  No,  in  no 
wise :  for  we  before  laid  to  the  charge  both  of  Jews  and  Greeks, 
that  they  are  all  under  sin  ;  as  it  is  written, 

There  is  none  righteous,  (Eccl.  vii.  20.) 

No,  not  one  ;  (Ps.  xiv.  3). 

There  is  none  that  understandeth. 

There  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God  ; 

They  have  all  turned  aside, 

They  are  together  become  unprofitable  ; 

There  is  none  that  doeth  good, 

No,  not  so  much  as  one  :  (Ps.  xiv.  2-3.) 

Their  throat  is  an  open  sepulchre  ; 

With  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit :  (Ps.  v.  9.) 

The  poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips :  (Ps.  cxl.  3.) 

Whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness :  (Ps.  x.  7.) 

Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood  ; 

Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways ; 

And  the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known  :  (Is.  lix.  7-8.) 

There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes.”  (Ps.  xxxvi.  1.) 

On  the  basis  of  this  compilation  by  the  Apostle,  a 
Greek  scribe  attached  these  passages  to  his  manuscript 
of  Ps.  xiv.,  and  from  that  resulted  the  following  facts, 
summed  up  in  the  words  of  Bishop  Perowne,  as  follows : 

“  But  in  some  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  in  the  Vulg.,  and  both  Arab., 
Syro-Arab.,  and  Copto-Arab.,  and  strangest  of  all  in  the  Syro- 
Hex.,  they  are  found  in  the  Psalm,  having  evidently  been  trans¬ 
ferred  hither  from  the  Epistle.  So  also  in  our  Prayer  Book 
version,  which,  it  should  be  remembered,  is,  in  fact,  Coverdale’s 


142 


THE  I1EXATEUCH 


(T 535)»  and  was  made,  not  from  the  original,  but  mainly  from 
the  Latin  and  German,  being  based  on  the  Zurich  Bible.” — 
( The  Psalms ,  vol.  i.,  p.  188.) 

And  thus  for  centuries  this  compilation  has  been  sung 
all  over  Christendom  as  if  it  were  a  portion  of  a  Psalm 
of  David. 

In  view  of  such  facts  as  these,  is  it  not  time  that  these 
American  professors  should  have  scholarship  sufficient 
to  deter  them  from  calling  the  compiler’s  work  in  our 
Hexateuch  a  piece  of  patchwork? 

As  Eichhorn  said  at  the  beginning,  the  documentary 
hypothesis  improves  the  evidence  for  the  fidelity  of  the 
records.  The  editor  of  the  Pentateuch,  instead  of  writ¬ 
ing  a  new  narrative  and  making  a  new  code,  collects  and 
compacts  the  several  narratives  and  codes.  He  does  it 
not  by  patchwork,  but  by  the  skilful  use  of  the  docu¬ 
ments.  Sometimes  they  are  given  side  by  side,  some¬ 
times  they  are  interwoven,  sometimes  they  are  entirely 
worked  over,  and  the  pieces  are  skilfully  seamed  to¬ 
gether.  The  work  of  the  inspired  editors  is  more  import¬ 
ant  for  us  than  the  work  of  the  original  writers.  The 
anti-critics  find  fault  with  the  differences  of  the  critics  in 
certain  verses  and  sections,  and  neglect  to  see  the  won¬ 
derful  concord  of  the  critics  in  the  analysis  as  a  whole. 
But  the  disagreements  of  the  critics  are  where  they  must 
be  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  namely,  in  the  seams, 
where  the  material  of  the  different  narrators  is  wrought 
over  in  order  to  make  the  narrative  harmonious.  The 
differences  do  not  exist  to  any  extent  elsewhere.  This 
is  rather  an  indirect  evidence  of  the  success  of  the 
analysis,  and  is  not  a  valid  argument  against  it. 

Dr.  Green’s  favorite  method  of  argumentation  is  to 
throw  the  critics  of  the  last  two  centuries  into  an  indis¬ 
criminate  mass,  and  then  point  to  their  discord  as  an 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


143 


evidence  of  the  unsoundness  of  their  conclusion.  This 
is  the  method  of  an  advocate,  and  not  of  a  scholar.  If 
the  critics  are  ranged  in  their  historic  order,  it  will  be 
manifest  that  the  differences  are  chiefly  between  the 
critics  of  the  several  different  stages  of  the  work  of  criti¬ 
cism.  As  the  work  of  criticism  has  advanced  since  the 
time  of  Astruc,  the  concord  of  critics  has  increased 
steadily,  and  differences  have  disappeared  with  every 
fresh  effort.  This  is  as  it  ought  to  be,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case.  It  is  so  in  all  science,  in  all  search 
after  truth.  The  truth-loving  scholars  advance  step  by 
step,  one  after  another,  and  remove  one  difficulty  after 
another  as  they  advance. 

The  differences  among  the  critics  in  the  analysis  of 
the  Hexateuch  are  surprisingly  few.  We  now  have 
accessible  to  us  the  analyses  of  Dillmann,  of  Kuenen,  of 
Wellhausen,  and  of  Reuss,  of  Driver,  and  of  Kautzsch, 
and  they  are  essentially  agreed. 

These  are  some  of  the  scholars  who*  hold  to  the 
critical  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch.  Dillmann,  Kleinert, 
Schrader,  and  Strack  of  Berlin,  Kittel  of  Breslau, 
Kautzsch  and  Meyer  of  Halle,  Noldeke,  Budde  and 
Nowack  of  Strassburg,  Baudissin  and  Jiilicher  of  Mar¬ 
burg,  Stade  of  Giessen,  Konig  of  Rostock,  Bathgen 
and  Giesebrecht  of  Greifswald,  Schultz,  Wellhausen, 
Smend  of  Gottingen,  Socin,  Guthe,  Fred.  Delitzsch  and 
Buhl  of  Leipzig,  Merx  and  Lemme  of  Heidelberg,  Cor- 
nill  of  Konigsberg,  Schiirer,  Klostermann  and  Breden- 
kamp  of  Kiel,  Kamphausen  of  Bonn,  Grill  of  Tubingen, 
Kohler  of  Erlangen,  Hommel  of  Munich,  Siegfried 
and  Stickel  of  Jena,  Orelli,  Duhm  and  Marti  of  Basle, 
Oettli  of  Bern,  Ryssel  of  Zurich,  Montet  of  Geneva, 
Vuilleumier  and  Gautier  of  Lausanne,  Volck  of  Dorpat, 
Bruston  and  Montet  of  Montaubon,  Reville,  Carriere, 


144 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


Vernes,  Darmsteller,  of  Paris  ;  Castelli  of  Florence,  Tiele 
and  Oort  of  Leiden,  Valeton  of  Utrecht,  Wildeboer  of 
Groningen,  De  La  Saussaye  and  Knappert  of  Amster¬ 
dam,  Lotz  and  Floigl  of  Vienna,  Cheyne,  Driver  and 
Cooke  of  Oxford,  Kirkpatrick,  W.  Robertson  Smith, 
Ryle  and  Stanton  of  Cambridge,  Drummond  and  Car¬ 
penter  of  the  Manchester  New  College,  Davison  of 
Richmond,  Whitehouse  of  Cheshunt,  Duff  of  the  York¬ 
shire  Congregational  College,  Davidson  of  Edinburgh, 
Kennedy  of  Aberdeen,  Adam  Smith  and  Robertson  of 
Glasgow,  Wright  and  Spurred  of  London,  Harper  and 
Addis  of  Melbourne.  On  what  other  subject  can  you  find 
such  agreement  among  specialists  the  world  over  ?  Where 
are  the  professors  in  the  Old  Testament  department  in 
the  universities  and  colleges  in  Europe,  who  hold  a  dif¬ 
ferent  view?  They  cannot  be  found.  Is  it  credible 
that  all  these  specialists  should  be  in  error  in  their  own 
departments,  and  that  a  few  American  Hebrew  professors 
should  have  the  right  of  it  ?  Even  in  our  country  we  may 
point  to  Toy  and  Lyon  of  Harvard,  Ladd  and  Curtis  of 
Yale,  Peters  and  Jastrow  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl¬ 
vania,  W.  R.  Harper,  Hirsch  and  S.  Ives  Curtiss  of 
Chicago,  Haupt  of  Johns  Hopkins,  George  Moore  of 
Andover,  Gast  of  Lancaster,  Henry  P.  Smith  of  Lane, 
Francis  Brown  of  Union,  Bartlett,  Batten  and  Kellner 
of  the  Episcopal  Divinity  schools,  Schmidt  and  Brown 
of  the  Baptist  schools,  and  many  others  who  agree  with 
them,  but  who  have  not  yet  published  their  conclusions. 
Such  men,  sustained  as  they  are  by  the  unanimous  voice 
of  the  Hebrew  scholars  of  Europe,  cannot  be  overcome 
by  such  appeals  to  popular  prejudice  as  have  thus  far 
constituted  the  staple  of  all  the  arguments  against  them. 
In  the  field  of  scholarship  the  question  is  settled.  It 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  145 

only  remains  for  the  ministry  and  people  to  accept  it 
and  adapt  themselves  to  it. 

The  evidence  sustaining  the  analysis  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  and  the  late  date  of  the  composition  of  some  of 
its  documents,  and  the  weight  of  scholarly  authority 
which  accepts  it,  are  so  great  that  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  any  candid  mind  can  resist  them.  That  there  are  a 
few  professorial  Hebrew  scholars  who  still  resist  them,  is 
due,  as  it  appears,  solely  and  alone  to  a  priori  dogmatic 
considerations.  They  think  it  necessary  to  defend  the 
traditional  theory  in  order  (1)  to  conserve  their  doctrine 
of  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture,  (2)  to  protect  their 
doctrine  that  only  a  well-known  prophet  like  Moses  can 
write  an  inspired  book,  and  (3)  to  secure  their  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  New  Testament  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
decided  this  matter  for  us  and  that  therefore  the  veracity 
and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  are  imperilled  unless  we 
recognize  his  testimony  as  decisive,  that  Moses  wrote 
the  Pentateuch.  They,  holding  these  dogmatic  views, 
are  incapable  of  being  influenced  by  any  arguments  of 
criticism  or  by  any  weight  of  authority  however  great. 
The  science  of  the  Higher  Criticism  is  resisted  by  spec¬ 
ulative  dogma  and  the  supposed  authority  of  Jesus,  in 
precisely  the  same  way  that  the  other  sciences  have 
been  resisted,  each  in  its  turn,  by  the  same  class  of 
minds. 


XIII. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

There  are  a  number  of  arguments  from  the  field  of 
Biblical  theology  which  guide  to  the  determination  of 
the  dates  of  the  documents  of  the  Hexateuch. 

(1) .  Divine  revelation  in  dreams  is  frequent  in  E 
(Gen.  xxviii.  12-15;  xxxvii.  5—10 ;  xl.  5-8;  xli.  1— 1 5  ; 
xlii.  9.)  It  is  mentioned  in  D,  Deut.  xiii.  2,  4,  6 ; 
but  is  not  known  to  J.  Revelation  in  the  ecstatic  state 
is  mentioned  by  E  and  J,  but  P  knows  nothing  of 
dreams  or  visions.  He  thinks  of  a  direct  communi¬ 
cation  by  God  to  the  soul  of  the  prophet.  Does  not 
this  indicate  a  later  stage  of  reflection? 

(2) .  There  is  a  different  conception  of  theophanies  in 
these  writers.  E  narrates  frequent  appearances  of  the 
theophanic  angel  of  God.  J  reports  appearances  of  the 
theophanic  angel  of  Yahweh.  These  theophanic  ap¬ 
pearances  are  mentioned  in  the  Ephraimitic  and  Judaic 
documents  of  the  prophetic  histories.  But  neither  D 
nor  P  knows  of  such  a  theophanic  angel.  When  God 
reveals  Himself,  in  the  Ephraimitic  documents,  He 
speaks  to  Moses  face  to  face,  and  Moses  sees  the  form 
of  God  in  the  pillar  of  God  standing  at  the  door  of  his 
tent.  In  the  great  theophany  granted  to  Moses  in  the 

Judaic  document  Ex.  xxxiii,  20-23,  Moses  is  permitted 
(146) 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  447 

only  to  see  the  departing  form  of  God,  and  it  is  repre¬ 
sented  that  it  would  be  death  to  see  God’s  face.  In 
Deuteronomy  it  is  said  that  the  voice  of  God  was 
heard,  but  His  form  was  not  seen.  In  the  priestly  docu¬ 
ment  it  is  the  light  and  fire  of  the  glory  of  God  which 
always  constitutes  the  theophany.  How  was  it  possible 
for  the  same  author  to  give  four  such  different  accounts 
of  the  methods  of  God’s  appearance  to  Moses  and  the 
people  ?  * 

(3).  There  is  a  different  conception  of  miracles.  The 
miracles  of  E  were  always  wrought  by  means  of  some 
external  instrument.  The  chief  of  these  is  the  rod  of 
God,  which  is  used  by  Moses  in  working  the  plagues  of 
Egypt  (Ex.  vii.  17  ;  ix.  23 a  ;  x.  13  ;  xiv.  16)  and  in  the 
victory  over  Amalek  (Ex.  xvii.  8-13).  A  branch  of  a 
tree  works  a  miracle  at  Mara  (Ex.  xv.  25),  a  brazen  ser¬ 
pent  was  erected  on  a  pole  for  healing  (Num.  xxi.  8-9), 
and  the  seven  sacred  trumpets  were  used  at  Jericho  (Jos. 
vi.  5).  The  miracles  of  J  were  wrought  without  any 
instruments,  by  the  wind  (Ex.  x.  13^,  19;  xiv.  21^)  by 
the  hand  of  God  (Ex.  iii.  20;  ix.  3,  15)  ;  by  his  strong 
hand  (Ex.  iii.  19;  xiii.  3,  9,  14;  xxxii.  11);  by  com¬ 
mand  (Ex.  iv.  2-9)  ;  and  without  human  mediation 
(Ex.  iv.  1-9;  viii.  17-19;  xvi.  27-30;  Num.  xi.  18-33), 
and  before  the  ark  (Jos.  iii.  15-17).  The  miracles  of  D 
were  wrought  by  the  strong  hand  and  the  outstretched 
arm  of  Jahveh  without  human  mediation  (Deut.  iv.  34  ; 
Jos.  iv.  24).  They  are  gifts  of  Jahveh  (Dt.  viii.  3-4, 
15-16  ;  xxix.  1-4).  The  miracles  of  P  were  wrought  by 
the  finger  of  God  (Ex.  viii.  15),  the  hand  of  God  (Ex.  vii. 
4-5).  Aaron’s  rod  takes  the  place  of  Moses’  rod  of  E 
(Ex.  vii.  9,  19-20;  viii.  1-3,  12-13;  Num.  xvii.  21-25; 


*  See  Appendix  VIII. 


148 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


xx.  8-17).  A  handful  of  ashes  was  once  used  (Ex. 
ix.  8-12). 

The  miracles  of  the  narratives  of  the  Hexateuch  are 
referred  to  in  such  a  way  in  the  Psalter  and  the  prophets 
as  to  give  evidence  of  value  as  to  their  composition. 


The  Egyptian  Plagues. 


r 

E. 

j- 

(and 

Psalm  Ixxviii.) 

P. 

Psahn  cv. 

1.  Bloody  wa¬ 
ter. 

1.  Bloody  wa¬ 

ter. 

2.  Frogs. 

3.  Swarms  of 

insects. 

4.  Pestilence. 

5.  Hail. 

6.  Locusts. 

1.  Bloody  wa¬ 

ter. 

2.  Frogs. 

3.  Lice  or 

gnats. 

4.  Ulcers. 

2.  Bloody  wa¬ 

ter. 

3.  Frogs. 

4.  Swarm  of  in¬ 

sects  and 
gnats. 

2.  Hail. 

3.  Locusts. 

4.  Darkness. 

5.  Death  of 

First-born. 

5.  Hail. 

6.  Locusts. 

1.  Darkness. 

7.  Death  of 

First-born. 

7.  Death  of 
First-born. 

5.  Death  of 
First-born. 

Psalm  Ixxviii.  mentions  the  seven  plagues  of  J,  the 
manna  and  quails  of  J,  and  the  miracles  of  cleaving 
the  sea  and  the  water  from  the  rock  of  E ;  but  none  of 
the  miracles  of  P.  It  seems  evident  that  when  this 
psalm  was  composed  J  and  E  had  not  been  compacted, 
else  why  were  the  plagues  of  E  omitted  ?  P  was  appar¬ 
ently  unknown,  for  why  should  all  its  miracles  be  ig¬ 
nored  ?  On  the  other  hand,  Psalm  cv.  gives  the  plagues 
of  Egypt  from  the  combined  narratives  of  E,  J  and  P, 
the  water  from  the  rock  of  E,  and  the  quails  and  manna 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY 


of  J,  showing  that  when  this  psalm  was  written  our 
present  Pentateuch  had  been  compacted.  Ps.  cvi.  gives, 
the  water  from  the  rock  and  the  quails  from  the  nar¬ 
rative  of  P,  and  the  crossing  of  the  sea  from  J,  showing 
a  preference  for  the  story  of  P.  Ps.  lxxiv.  mentions 
the  cleaving  of  the  sea  and  of  the  rock  of  E,  and  the 
drying  of  the  Jordan  of  D,  making  it  evident  that  the 
Psalm  was  written  after  the  composition  of  D.  The 
reference  to  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  in  the  prophets 
Is.  x.  2 6;  xi.  15-16;  the  exilic  Isaiah  xliii.  16,  1.  2, 
li.  10;  the  earlier,  Zech.  x.  11,  are  all  based  on  JE, 
making  it  probable  that  P  was  unknown  to  them. 

(4).  There  is  a  difference  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Cove¬ 
nants.  E  knows  of  two  covenants,  the  one  with  Israel 
at  Horeb  (Ex.  xxiv.  3-8),  the  other  at  Shechem  (Jos. 
xxiv.  25).  J  reports  a  series  of  promises  to  our  first 
parents  and  the  patriarchs,  but  only  two  covenants,  the 
one  with  Abraham  (Gen.  xv.  18),  the  other  with  Israel  at 
Sinai  (Ex.  xxxiv.  10-27).  D  reports  a  covenant  with 
Israel  at  Horeb,  agreeing  with  E  (Dt.  iv.  13),  and  a  sec¬ 
ond  covenant  in  the  land  of  Moab,  unknown  to  the  other 
writers  (Dt.  xxviii.  69,  xxix.  20).  P  gives  a  series  of 
great  covenants :  (1)  the  covenant  with  Noah  and  its 
sign  the  rainbow  (Gen.  ix.  1-17) ;  (2)  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  its  sign  circumcision  (Gen.  xvii.) ;  (3)  the 
covenant  with  Israel  at  Sinai  and  its  sign  the  Sabbath 
(Ex.  vi.  4,  xxxi.  16-17);  (4)  the  covenant  with  Phinehas 
(Num.  xxv.  12-13).* 


*  The  terms  used  on  these  documents  are  very  different.  D'H3  m3  is  used  9 
times  in  JED,  but  not  in  P,  who  uses  rP"Q  D^pH  [establish  a  covenant] 
8  times,  a  phrase  used  elsewhere  only  in  Ez.  xvi.  60,  62,  and  in  the  sense  of  con¬ 
firming  a  covenant  Lev.  xxvi.  9  (H)  and  Dt.  viii.  18.  So  also  “  remember  the 
covenant  ”  is  used  only  by  P  4  and  H  Lev.  xxvi.  42,  45,  Ez.  xvi.  60,  1  Chron. 
xvi.  15,  and  in  the  late  Psalms  cv.  8,  cvi.  45,  cxi.  5.  The  phrases  “  everlasting 


150 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


(5) .  In  I  Sam.  ix.  9,  it  is  said  :  “  Beforetime  in  Israel 
when  a  man  went  to  inquire  of  God,  thus  he  said,  Come 
and  let  us  go  to  the  seer :  for  he  that  is  now  called  a 
Prophet  was  before  time  called  a  Seer.”  This  is  an  histor¬ 
ical  note  by  the  editor  of  Samuel,  stating  that  the  Nabi  of 
his  time  was  anciently  called  a  Roeh.  This  passage  is  an 
explanation  of  the  fact  that  in  this  document  Samuel 
was  called  a  seer.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of  it 
is,  that  prior  to  the  time  of  Samuel,  and  for  some  time 
afterwards,  Nabi  was  not  used.  How  then  shall  we  ex¬ 
plain  the  usage  of  Nabi  with  reference  to  Abraham  and 
Moses  in  the  Hexateuch  ?  Are  we  justified  in  suppos¬ 
ing  that  the  writers  of  these  documents,  who  use  this 
term  in  the  Hexateuch,  wrote  subsequent  to  Samuel  and 
after  the  term  Nabi  had  supplanted  Roeh  ? 

It  is  noteworthy  that  P  does  not  use  this  term,  doubt¬ 
less  because  he  was  cognizant  of  this  historical  fact, 
writing  with  this  note  of  Samuel  before  him.  There  ap¬ 
pears  to  be  a  growth  in  the  conception  of  a  prophet.  In 
ancient  times  the  prophets  were  called  “seers”  from  the 
ecstatic  state  in  which  they  prophesied.  The  term  “  man 
of  God”  then  came  into  use  in  the  times  of  Elijah,  and 
is  commonly  used  in  the  Ephraimitic  sources  of  Kings. 
At  a  later  date  “  Nabi  ”  was  used  to  indicate  prophets 
of  a  higher  order  who  were  the  preachers  or  spokesmen 
of  Yahweh.  The  fact  that  E  J  D  use  this  term  would 
indicate  that  these  documents  were  not  composed  before 
the  age  of  Elijah. 

(6) .  The  doctrine  of  the  divine  Spirit  is  not  found  in 
E.  The  Spirit  of  God  in  Gen.  xli.  38  is  the  spiritual  en¬ 
ergy  in  man  imparted  by  God  to  enable  him  to  act.  The 


covenant”  and  “covenant  of  peace”  are  also  confined  to  P  in  the  Hexateuch. 
The  former  was  not  earlier  than  Jeremiah,  except  in  the  poetic  passage  2  Sam. 
xxiii.  5  ;  the  latter,  elsewhere  only  in  Ezekiel  and  the  exilic  Isaiah. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  154 

divine  Spirit  in  J  rests  upon  Moses  and  the  elders,  en¬ 
dowing  them  with  the  power  to  prophesy  in  the  ecstatic 
state  (Num.  xi.  25-29).  The  only  other  passage  in 
which  there  is  reference  to  the  Spirit  of  God  is  Gen.  vi. 
3,  where  it  refers  to  the  spirit  breathed  into  man  by 
God,  according  to  Gen.  ii.  7.  This  doctrine  of  the  Spirit, 
as  coming  upon  men  and  endowing  them  with  gifts  of 
prophecy  and  government,  is  common  in  the  earlier  nar¬ 
ratives  of  the  prophetic  historians  and  the  earlier  proph¬ 
ets.  But  P  gives  a  doctrine  of  the  divine  Spirit  which 
is  vastly  higher.  In  Ex.  xxxi.  3  the  divine  Spirit  fills 
the  architect,  who  constructed  the  tabernacle  and  its 
furniture,  with  wisdom  and  understanding,  and  in  Gen. 
i.  2,  the  divine  Spirit  hovers  over  the  primeval  abyss  with 
creative  energy.  Such  an  exalted  doctrine  of  the  divine 
Spirit  is  found  elsewhere  in  the  literature  no  earlier  than 
the  second  Isaiah.  The  poem  which  contains  it  must 
be  of  late  date. 

(7).  The  attributes  of  God  are  only  indirectly  taught 
in  E,  but  in  J  they  appear  in  several  important  pas¬ 
sages,  as  Ex.  xxxiv.  6-7,  where  the  divine  mercy  is  un¬ 
folded,  and  the  song  Deut.  xxxii.  3-4,  where  the  divine 
righteousness  is  set  forth,  each  in  a  number  of  synony¬ 
mous  terms.  It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  the  phrase* 
“  mercy  and  faithfulness  ”  is  only  in  the  Judaic  writer 
in  the  Hexateuch,  both  as  applied  to  men  and  to  God  ; 
elsewhere  chiefly  in  the  Psalter  and  Proverbs. 

The  doctrine  of  Holiness  is  characteristic  of  H  and  P. 
As  Driver  says  of  H  :  “  The  principle  which  determines 
most  conspicuously  the  character  of  the  entire  section  is 
that  of  holiness — partly  ceremonial,  partly  moral — as  a 
quality  distinguishing  Israel,  demanded  of  Israel  by 


* 


nsNi  non. 


152 


THE  IIEXATEUCH 


Jehovah  (Lev.  xix.  2  ;  xx.  7,  8,  26  ;  xxi.  6-8  ;  xv.  23  ; 
xxii.  9,  1 6,  32),  and  regulating  the  Israelite’s  life.  Holi¬ 
ness  is,  indeed,  a  duty  laid  upon  Israel  in  other  parts  of 
the  Pentateuch  ;  but  while  elsewhere  it  appears  merely 
as  one  injunction  among  many,  it  is  here  insisted  on  with 
an  emphasis  and  frequency  which  constitute  it  the  lead¬ 
ing  motive  of  the  entire  section.  In  consequence  of  this 
very  prominent  characteristic,  the  present  group  of  chap¬ 
ters  received  from  Klostermann  in  1877,  the  happily 
chosen  title  of  Das  He il igke itsgesetz,  or  ‘  The  Law  of 
Holiness,’  which  it  has  since  retained.”* 

The  segholate  noun  Qodesh  is  used  in  the  song  of  the 
Red  Sea,  Ex.  xv.  n,  of  the  holiness  of  God,  where  it  is 
a  synonym  of  majesty  and  exaltation,  and  of  the  place  of 
the  divine  habitation  Ex.  xv.  13.  J  E  uses  it  of  the  place 
of  a  theophany,  Ex.  iii.  5,  Jos.  v.  15,  and  of  consecrated 
spoil,  Jos.  vi.  19.  D  uses  it  of  the  heavenly  abode  of 
Yahweh,  Dt.  xxvi.  15,  and  of  consecrated  things,  Dt.  xii. 
26,  xxvi.  13.  But  H  and  P  use  it  about  217  times,  and 
especially  in  a  large  number  of  phrases  peculiar  to  them. 

The  adjectivef  “  Holy  ”  is  used  in  E  of  Israel  as  a 
holy  nation,  Ex.  xix.  6  ;  and  of  God  as  a  holy  God, 
Jos.  xxiv.  19;  by  D  also  of  Israel  as  a  holy  people  6 
times;  of  the  camp  of  Israel  as  holy,  Dt.  xxiii.  15.  But 
H  and  P  use  it  of  the  holy  place  8  times,  of  the  holy 
people  7  times,  of  the  holy  priesthood  5  times,  of  holy 
water  once,  of  the  Nazarite  twice,  and  above  all  of  Yah¬ 
weh ’s  words,  “  I  am  holy,”  5  times. 

Glory;);  is  used  in  JE  of  the  honor  and  glory  of  men, Gen. 
xxxi.  1  ;  xlv.  13  ;  xlix.  6  ;  Num.  xxiv.  1 1  ;  and  of  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  theophany,  Ex.  xxxiii.  18,  22  (J),  Dt.  v.  21  ; 


*  Literature  of  the  0.  T.,  p.  44. 
t  “  Glory,”  TD3. 


f  “  Holy,”  mp. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  153 

and  of  the  glory  or  honor  due  to  Yahweh,  the  God  of 
Israel,  Jos.  vii.  19.  In  the  mixed  narrative  Num.  xiv. 
21-22  (ascribed  by  Dillmann  to  R),  the  manifested  glory 
of  God  is  presented  in  an  oath  of  God  which  reappears 
in  Ps.  lxxii.  But  in  P  this  word  becomes  characteristic. 
It  is  used  twice  of  the  glory  of  the  high  priest’s  gar¬ 
ments,  Ex.  xxviii.  2,40  ;  and  13  times  of  the  theophanic 
glory  in  some  form  of  light  and  fire.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  it  is  used  in  Ezekiel  17  times  in  the  same  sense, 
showing  that  a  close  relation  exists  between  Ezekiel 
and  P. 

(8).  There  are  striking  differences  in  the  doctrine  of 
sin.  Sin  is  mentioned  in  E  only  in  general  terms  and 
in  connection  with  special  acts  of  evil-doing.  J  unfolds 
the  doctrine  of  sin  in  a  graphic  manner  from  the  point  of 
view  of  personal  relation  to  God.  Evil  is  first  presented 
to  man  in  the  divine  prohibition  of  the  tree  of  knowl¬ 
edge,  then  in  the  animal  serpent,  used  by  the  evil  intel¬ 
ligence  who  deceives  the  woman.  The  attractions  of 
the  sensuous  good  excites  her  desire,  she  partakes  of  the 
evil  fruit,  she  tempts  her  husband  and  he  sins  with  her. 
They  both  experience  the  blush  of  shame,  they  fear 
God  and  hide  from  His  presence.  When  called  to  ac¬ 
count  they  excuse  themselves  and  blame  others.  Sin 
knocks  as  a  wild  beast  at  the  door  of  Cain’s  heart ;  once 
admitted  it  rages  in  anger,  revenge  and  murder.  Sin 
develops  in  the  race  through  the  intercourse  of  evil 
spirits  with  the  daughters  of  mankind,  until  mankind  be¬ 
comes  totally  corrupt.  Sin  unfolds  in  Babylon  in  a  cen¬ 
tralization  of  power  and  tyranny,  and  in  Sodom  and  its 
sisters  in  sins  of  uncleanness  until  they  become  exceed- 
ingly  wicked.  Sin  is  a  forsaking  God,  a  violating  his 
covenant,  and  a  whoring  after  other  gods. 

D  conceives  of  sin  as  turning  away  from  God,  rebel- 


154 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


ling  against  Him  with  a  stiff  neck,  murmuring  against 
Him  and  tempting  Him. 

P  conceives  of  sin  chiefly  as  a  violation  of  the  law  ;  he 
does  not  attempt  to  describe  its  origin  or  develepment. 
He  distinguishes  technically  between  sin  as  an  error,  and 
as  high-handed  transgression.  He  represents  sin  in  the 
use  of  a  characteristic  term,*  both,  noun  and  verb,  to  act 
treacherously,  and  treachery,  13  times,  which  term  is  un¬ 
known  to  the  other  narrators,  is  not  found  in  the  pro¬ 
phetic  histories,  but  in  Dan.  ix.  7,  Ezekiel  7  times  and 
elsewhere  chiefly  in  the  Chronicler.  This  characteristic 
use  of  such  a  late  word  favors  the  exilic  or  post-exilic 
origin  of  P. 

It  should  be  noticed  here  that  H  has  important 
phrases  “to  bear  sin”  or  “  his  sin”  or  “their  sin”  or 
“  iniquity  ”  or  “  their  iniquity  ”  or  “  iniquity  of  another.” 
These  are  used  chiefly  by  H.  Elsewhere  in  the  Hex- 
ateuch  only  by  P.  Ezekiel  frequently  uses  them. 
Elsewhere  they  are  seldom  found,  but  compare  the  exilic 
Isaiah  liii.  12. 

(9) .  The  divine  judgment  of  sin  is  commonly  expressed 
in  the  Hexateuch  by  hardening  the  heart.  But  the  doc¬ 
uments  have  different  expressions  for  it.f 

(10) .  The  doctrine  of  redemption  in  E  is  simply  re¬ 
demption  from  evil  and  not  from  sin.  The  only  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  latter  subject  is  in  the  warning  at  the  close 
of  the  covenant  code  lest  they  should  not  be  forgiven, 
Ex.  xxiii.  21.  In  J  it  is  the  nature  of  God  to  forgive 

t  E  uses  the  term  3^  ptn  Ex.  iv.  21,  x.  20,  27;  also  D2  in  Jos.  xi.  20; 
D  uses  nn  nppn  and  22b  Dt.  ii.  30  ;  J  uses  the  term  2 b  T33H 

Ex.  viii.  11,  28,  ix.  34,  x.  1 ;  3^>  133  Ex.  vii.  14,  ix.  7  ;  P  uses  3^  il^pH  Ex. 
vii.  3,  and  2b  prn  Ex.  vii.  13,  22,  viii.  15,  ix.  35  ;  3p  pfn  Ex.  ix.  12,  xi.  10, 
xiv.  4,  8,  17. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  155 

sin,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6-9  and  Num.  xiv.  18-20;  when  Moses 
intercedes  for  the  people  then  sin  is  covered  over  with¬ 
out  sacrifice,  Ex.  xxxii.  30-34.  In  D  Yahweh  chooses 
Israel  and  enters  into  a  relation  of  love  with  them.  P 
conceives  of  redemption  either  as  the  removal  of  sin 
from  the  persons  of  the  sinners  or  the  sacred  places,  or 
as  the  covering  it  over  at  the  divine  altars  by  the  blood 
of  the  sin-offerings.  There  is  an  interesting  usage  of 
terms  in  the  documents.* 

The  relation  of  love  between  God  and  man  is  charac¬ 
teristic  of  D.  God’s  love  to  His  people  is  in  Dt.  iv.  37 ; 
vii.  8,  13;  x.  15;  xxiii.  6;  not  elsewhere  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  but  first  in  Hosea  the  prophet.  Love  to  God  is 
in  Dt.  vi.  5  ;  vii.  9  ;  x.  12  ;  xi.  1 ;  xiii.  22  ;  xiii.  4  ;  xix. 
9;  xxx.  6,  16,  20;  Jos.  xxii.  5;  xxiii.  11.  Elsewhere 
in  the  Hexateuch  only  Ex.  xx.  6=Dt.  v.  10  [a  Deuter- 
onomic  addition  to  the  Ten  Words]. 

These  examples  from  the  field  of  Biblical  Theology 
are  sufficient  for  our  purpose  at  present.  They  might 
be  increased  to  an  indefinite  extent.  They  show  the 
same  order  of  development  that  we  have  found  in  the 
legislation  and  in  the  language,  and  indicate  that  the 
documents  were  composed  at  such  epochs  as  best  ex¬ 
plain  this  development. 


*  is  used  in  poetic  passages  of  E  of  the  redemption  of  Jacob,  Gn.  xlviii. 
16,  and  of  Israel’s  redemption  by  God,  Ex.  xv.  13  and  Ex.  vi.  6  (RP),  but  it  is 
used  by  HP  only  in  the  lower  sense  of  redemption  of  things  by  payment  of  a 
fine,  Lv.  xxvii.  13,  15,  19,  20,  31.  It  is  used  in  the  sense  of  acting  as  a  kins¬ 
man  chiefly  in  DHP  and  Ruth,  not  in  JE.  ["HS  is  used  for  the  redemption  of  Israel 
by  D,  but  by  JE  and  P  only  in  the  lower  sense.  forgive  is  used  in  E  ; 

rfc  in  DP  ;  both  terms  in  J.  is  used  in  Hos.  xiv.  3  ;  Mic.  vii.  iS  ;  Is. 

ii.  9,  xxxiii.  24 ;  Jb.  vii.  21  ;  1  Sam.  xv.  25  ;  but  is  unknown  to  Jeremiah,  Kings 
the  second  Isaiah,  Daniel,  Lamentations,  and  the  Chronicler,  who  use  n^D. 
It  is  found  only  in  the  earlier  and  the  latest  Psalms. 


XIV. 

THE  RESULT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 

We  have  gone  over  the  several  lines  of  argument  usu¬ 
ally  employed  in  Higher  Criticism  in  order  to  gain  their 
witness  to  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  sev¬ 
eral  lines  of  evidence  converge  to  the  same  results. 
These  may  be  stated  as  follows :  The  document  E  is 
known  to  Hosea,  it  resembles  the  Ephraimitic  prophet 
and  also  the  Ephraimitic  writers  in  the  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kings.  It  is  the  most  archaic  of  the  documents  in 
language,  style,  and  historical  and  doctrinal  conceptions. 
It  shows  great  interest  in  the  sacred  places  of  Northern 
Israel.  It  appears  therefore  that  E  was  the  narrative  of 
the  Northern  kingdom  of  Israel,  and  that  its  law  code, 
the  greater  book  of  the  covenant,  was  the  Mosaic  law  in 
its  Ephraimitic  codification. 

It  is  possible  that  J  was  known  to  Hosea,  but  this  is 
not  certain.  It  was  evidently  known  to  the  prophet 
Isaiah.  Its  interest  in  the  sanctuaries  in  Judah  and  its 
resemblance  with  the  Judaic  writers  of  the  histories  of 
David  and  Solomon  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings, 
make  it  altogether  probable  that  we  have  in  this  writing 
the  Judaic  recension  of  the  history.  The  only  legisla¬ 
tion  it  attributes  to  Moses  is  the  moral  law  of  the  Ten 
Words,  the  decalogue  of  worship  (the  little  book  of  the 
(i56) 


THE  RESULT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT 


157 


Covenant)  and  a  special  law  of  the  Passover,  its  style 
is  the  very  choicest  and  best.  The  author  probably 
lived  at  the  centre  of  Jewish  affairs,  in  the  holy  city, 
Jerusalem,  where  he  had  access  to  the  best  sources  of 
information  and  where  he  had  acquired  the  best  literary 
culture. 

Deuteronomy  cannot  be  traced  earlier  than  the  reign 
of  Josiah.  It  then  comes  into  full  recognition  and  use  in 
the  work  of  the  compiler  of  the  Book  of  Kings  and  in  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah.  It  was  a  recodification  of  the  old 
covenant  code  of  Moses  in  the  Judaic  recension,  and 
thus  the  code  shows  parallelism  with  the  covenant  code 
of  E.  The  prophetic  codifier  shows  by  his  method  and 
style  that  he  had  back  of  him  a  long  history  of  prophetic 
oral  and  written  discourses. 

The  code  of  Holiness  comes  into  the  historic  field  first 
in  connection  with  Ezekiel.  It  is  a  codification  of  the 
immemorial  practice  of  the  priests  of  Jerusalem  going 
back  to  Aaron  and  Moses. 

The  priest-code  and  the  document  which  contains  it 
cannot  be  proven  till  Ezra’s  time.  It  was  a  larger  codi¬ 
fication  of  the  priestly  ritual  and  customs  coming  down 
by  tradition  from  Moses  and  Aaron  in  the  priestly 
circles  of  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  carefully  con¬ 
served  as  holy  relics  in  the  priestly  families  among  the 
exiles,  as  bearing  in  them  sacred  memories  and  holy 
promises. 

Driver  makes  this  moderate  and  cautious  statement : 

“  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  Moses  was  the  ulti¬ 
mate  founder  of  both  the  national  and  the  religious  life 
of  Israel;  and  that  he  provided  his  people  not  only  with 
at  least  the  nucleus  of  a  system  of  civil  ordinances  (such 
as  would,  in  fact,  arise  directly  out  of  his  judicial  func¬ 
tions,  as  described  in  Ex.  xviii.),  but  also  (as  the  neces- 


158 


THE  HEXATE0CH 


sary  correlative  of  the  primary  truth  that  Jehovah  was  the 
God  of  Israel)  with  some  system  of  ceremonial  observ¬ 
ances,  designed  as  the  expression  and  concomitant  of 
the  religious  and  ethical  duties  involved  in  the  people’s 
relations  to  its  national  God.  It  is  reasonable  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  the  teaching  of  Moses  on  these  subjects  is  pre¬ 
served,  in  its  least  modified  form,  in  the  Decalogue  and 
the  “  Book  of  the  Covenant  ”  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.)  It  is  not, 
however,  required  by  the  view  treated  above  as  probable 
to  conclude  that  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  limited  to 
the  subjects  dealt  with  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  ;  amongst  the 
enactments  peculiar  to  Dt. — which  tradition,  as  it  seems, 
ascribed  to  a  later  period  of  the  legislator’s  life — there 
are  many  which  likewise  may  well  have  formed  part  of 
it.  It  is  further  in  analogy  with  ancient  custom  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  some  form  of  priesthood  would  be  established 
by  Moses :  that  this  priesthood  would  be  hereditary  ; 
and  that  the  priesthood  would  also  inherit  from  their 
founder  some  traditionary  lore  (beyond  what  is  con¬ 
tained  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.)  on  matters  of  ceremonial  observ¬ 
ance.  And  accordingly  we  find  that  JE  both  mentions 
repeatedly  an  Ark  and  “  Tent  of  Meeting”  as  existing 
in  the  Mosaic  age  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7- it,  Nu.  xi.,  24ft,  xii. 
4ff,  Dt.  xxxi.  iqff),  and  assigns  to  Aaron  a  prominent  and, 
indeed,  an  official  position  (Ex.  iv.  14,  “Aaron  the  Le- 
vite /”  xviii.  12;  xxiv.  1,  9);  further,  that  in  Dt.  (x.  6b) 
a  hereditary  priesthood  descended  from  him  is  expressly 
recognized  ;  and  also  that  there  are  early  allusions  to  the 
“  tribe  of  Levi  ”  as  enjoying  priestly  privileges  and  exer¬ 
cising  priestly  functions  (Dt.  xxxiii.  10;  Mic.  iii.  n  ;  cf. 
Jud.  xvii.  13).  The  principles  by  which  the  priesthood 
was  to  be  guided  were  laid  down,  it  may  be  supposed,  in 
outline  by  Moses.  In  process  of  time,  however,  as  na¬ 
tional  life  grew  more  complex,  and  fresh  cases  requiring 


THE  RESULT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT 


159 


to  be  dealt  with  arose,  these  principles  would  be  found 
no  longer  to  suffice,  and  their  extension  would  become  a 
necessity.  Especially  in  matters  of  ceremonial  observ¬ 
ance,  which  would  remain  naturally  within  the  control 
of  the  priests,  regulations  such  as  those  enjoined  in  Ex. 
xx.  24-26,  xxii.  29-31,  xxiii.  14-19,  would  not  long  con¬ 
tinue  in  the  same  rudimentary  state;  fresh  definitions  and 
distinctions  would  be  introduced,  more  precise  rules 
would  be  prescribed  for  the  method  of  sacrifice,  the  ritual 
to  be  observed  by  the  priests,  the  dues  which  they  were 
authorized  to  receive  from  the  people,  and  other  similar 
matters.  After  the  priesthood  had  acquired,  through 
the  foundation  of  Solomon’s  temple,  a  permanent  centre, 
it  is  probable  that  the  process  of  development  and  sys¬ 
tematization  advanced  more  rapidly  than  before.  And 
thus  the  allusions  in  Dt.  imply  the  existence  of  usages 
beyond  those  which  fall  directly  within  the  scope  of  the 
book,  and  belonging  specially  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  priests  {e. g.  xvii.  1 1,  xxiv.  8) :  Ezekiel,  being  a  priest 
himself,  alludes  to  such  usages  more  distinctly.  Al¬ 
though,  therefore,  there  are  reasons  for  supposing  that 
the  priest-code  assumed  finally  the  shape  in  which  we 
have  it  in  the  age  subsequent  to  Ezekiel,  it  rests  ulti¬ 
mately  upon  an  ancient  traditional  basis  ;  and  many  of 
the  institutions  prominent  in  it  are  recognized,  in  various 
stages  of  their  growth,  by  the  earlier  pre-exilic  literature, 
by  Dt.  and  by  Ezekiel.  The  laws  of  P,  even  when  they 
included  later  elements,  were  still  referred  to  Moses, — no 
doubt  because  in  its  basis  and  origin  Hebrew  legislation 
was  actually  derived  from  him,  and  was  only  modified 
gradually.”* 

The  conclusions  of  our  argument  may  be  stated  as 
follows  : 


*  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa?nent,  pp.  145,  146. 


160 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


(1) .  We  have  not  one  narrative,  but  a  fourfold  narra¬ 
tive  of  the  origin  of  the  old  covenant  religion,  as  we 
have  a  fourfold  gospel  giving  the  narrative  of  the  origin 
of  the  new  covenant  religion.  There  is,  indeed,  a  re¬ 
markable  correspondence  in  these  four  types  or  points 
of  view.  The  Ephraimitic  writer  may  be  compared 
with  Mark,  the  Judaic  writer  with  Matthew,  the  priestly 
writer  with  Luke,  and  the  Deuteronomist  with  John. 
The  difference  between  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Gospels 
is  that  the  four  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  have  been 
compacted  by  a  series  of  inspired  Redactors ;  whereas 
the  Gospels  have  to  be  harmonized  by  uninspired  teach¬ 
ers  in  the  Church.  This  unity  in  variety  strengthens 
the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch.  As  the  four  Gospels 
contain  the  gospel  of  Christ,  so  the  narratives  of  the 
Pentateuch  contain  the  law  of  Moses.  As  our  Saviour 
is  set  forth  by  the  Evangelist  as  the  mediator  of  the 
new  covenant,  Moses  is  set  forth  by  the  narratives  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant. 

(2) .  The  Pentateuch  does  not  give  us  one  Mosaic 
code,  but  several  codes  of  Mosaic  legislation,  a  deca¬ 
logue  of  worship,  a  judicial  code  of  several  decalogues,  a 
people’s  code,  a  code  of  holiness,  and  a  priest-code, 
contained  in  the  narratives,  somewhat  as  the  Gospels 
present  us  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  varied  types 
peculiar  to  Mark,  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John.  As  we 
harmonize  the  Gospels  for  a  complete  and  symmetrical 
statement  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  so  we  harmonize  the 
codes  of  the  Pentateuch  for  a  complete  and  symmetrical 
exposition  of  the  law  of  Moses.  The  law  was  given 
through  Moses,  grace  and  truth  came  through  Jesus 
Christ. 

(3) .  The  Mosaic  legislation  was  delivered  through 
Moses,  the  great  prophetic  law-giver  of  Israel,  and  then 


THE  RESULT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT 


161 


unfolded  in  historical  usage  and  interpretation  in  a 
series  of  codifications  by  inspired  prophets  and  priests; 
but  it  was  in  several  stages  of  advancement  in  the  his¬ 
torical  life  and  experience  of  Israel  from  the  conquest  to 
the  exile.  It  was  a  divine  ideal,  a  supernatural  revealed 
instruction,  to  guide  the  people  of  Israel  throughout 
their  history,  and  lead  them  to  the  prophet  greater  than 
Moses,  who  was  to  fulfil  and  complete  his  legislation. 
The  law  was  the  true  light  of  Israel  until  the  first  Ad¬ 
vent,  even  as  the  Gospel  is  the  light  and  guide  of  the 
Church  until  the  Second  Advent.  Israel  appropriated 
more  and  more  the  instruction  of  the  law,  as  the  Church 
has  appropriated  more  and  more  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel.  The  history  of  God’s  people  under  both  cove¬ 
nants  has  been  essentially  the  same — a  grand  ma/ch  for¬ 
ward  under  the  supernatural  light  of  a  divine  revelation. 

(4) .  Law  and  Prophecy  are  not  two  distinct  and  sepa¬ 

rate  modes  of  revelation,  but  the  same.  The  law  of 
Moses  was  as  truly  prophetic  as  legal.  Moses  was  even 
more  a  prophet  than  a  law-giver.  The  prophets  of  God 
that  followed  him  ah  ’  divine  law  as  well  as  divine 
prophecy.  As  tlv  ^  new  ^^venant  were 

not  merely  ex1  icors  of  the  Gospel,  _it  came  forth 
from  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ  with  new  revelations, 
enlarging  and  completing  the  Gospel.  ;  so  the  prophets 
were  not  mere  expositors  of  the  law,  but  came  forth  im¬ 
mediately  from  the  presence  of  Jahweh  as  really  as 
Moses  did,  with  new  revelations  enlarging  and  complet¬ 
ing  the  old.  The  distinction  between  law  and  prophecy 
in  the  Bible  is  a  fluctuating  one,  so  that  the  whole  divine 
revelation  may  be  called  law,  and  also  prophecy,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  usage  of  the  Bible  itself. 

(5) .  There  is  in  the  law,  as  in  the  Gospel,  a  divine 
transforming  power  which  shaped  the  history  of  Israel, 


162 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


as  the  Gospel  has  shaped  the  history  of  the  Church  in 
successive  stages  of  appropriation.  Not  without  some 
reason  have  many  recent  Christian  scholars  after  Nean- 
der  divided  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  after  the 
names  of  the  chief  apostles  as  indicating  the  various 
types  of  Christianity.  With  even  more  reason  might  we 
divide  the  history  of  Israel  into  stages  of  progress  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  several  law  codes.  The  Christian 
Church  may  look  forward  to  a  time  when  the  unity  and 
variety  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  shall  be  fully  manifested 
in  her  historic  life.  The  people  of  Israel  also  reached  a 
stage  when  in  her  historic  life  the  several  codes  har¬ 
monized,  and  the  whole  bent  of  the  nation  was  in  the 
study  of  the  law  and  a  conscientious  fulfilment  of  it,  and 
then  ir^the  fulness  of  time  Christ  Jesus  the  Messiah  came. 

The  deeper  study  of  the  unity  and  variety  of  the  Hex- 
ateuchal  narratives  and  laws,  as  we  defend  their  his¬ 
toricity  against  Reuss,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen,  and 
advance  in  the  apprehension  of  their  sublime  harmony, 
will  fructify  and  enrich  the  theology  of  our  day,  just  as 
the  deeper  study  of  the  ur  ’*•  1  variety  of  the  gospels 

by  the  school  'ceof  them  against 

Strauss,  Renvix,  cind  Baur,  has  been  an  sp^akable  bless¬ 
ing  in  the  past  generation.  This  havin^  been  accom¬ 
plished,  we  may  look  forward  to  a  time  when  our  eyes 
shall  be  opened  as  never  before  to  the  magnificent 
unity  of  the  whole  Bible  in  the  midst  of  its  wondrous 
variety.  Then  the  word  of  God,  as  one  supernatural 
divine  revelation,  will  rise  into  such  a  position  of  spirit¬ 
ual  power  and  transcendent  influence,  as  shall  greatly 
advance  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  hasten  the  realization  of  that  most  blessed 
hope  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  in  glory. 


